Truth

SITTING in her ex-fiance’s car, Sydney Sweeney looked a far cry from her usual glamourous self as she screamed during a very heated row.

And now we can reveal that the secret meeting with Jonathan Davino sparked a huge row with her new boyfriend Scooter Braun, who was left feeling “furious” and “disrespected” – and the fallout could have grave consequences.

The 28-year-old Hollywood star had been enjoying dinner with friends and her ex in Santa Monica over the weekend when things appeared to turn sour.

She was later seen in Jonathan’s car and, according to reports from TMZ, she could be heard screaming and telling him: “I don’t believe you. Please leave, leave me alone.”

The unlikely scene raised eyebrows, even more so when just days later Sydney headed out for dinner again – this time with Scooter, putting on a united front after the pair held crisis talks.

“He’s made it clear that he wants her 100%, that she needs to compromise on some things, and that seeing her ex like that crossed a line.”

Scooter Braun insider

An insider close to the couple told us how Scooter, 44, made it clear to the actress that she had ‘crossed a line’.

They explained: “Scooter got really mad. He doesn’t like that kind of behaviour at all, especially knowing the history between her and Jonathan.

“He knows they had a serious relationship, were together for a long time, and even got engaged. So, seeing her with him again — and getting caught on camera getting into his car — really set him off.”

Scooter’s upset is said to stem from just how much he loves the Euphoria star, who we previously revealed he is planning to move in with.

The insider continued: “He’s not controlling, but he wants her to know that he truly cares about her and that his feelings are real.

“He’s deeply in love and serious about building a future together. Scooter’s a man with strong values and morals — and for him, it’s not acceptable for his partner to be seen with other men, especially exes.

“He thought what she did with Jonathan was disrespectful and not cool, and he didn’t want to stay silent about it.

“He was hurt and wanted her to know. What he wants is full transparency between them — and for her to be the same way, but also to act like someone who’s in a committed relationship, not single anymore.

“He’s made it clear that he wants her 100%, that she needs to compromise on some things, and that seeing her ex like that crossed a line.”

Scooter is said to be aware that, given their age difference, he could be considered “old fashioned”.

Our insider says he “does a lot” for the star, stating he’s “present, supportive, and fully committed”.

‘Public humiliation’

Sydney was due to marry businessman Jonathan, 41, earlier this year but called off their engagement after mounting speculation over the state of their relationship.

The pair met in 2018 and got engaged in February 2022.

At the time, the actress spoke at length about their wedding and future before things came to an end.

Our insider added: “It has to be a blow for Jonathan that she has moved on so publicly and seems really ready to settle down this time.

“He feels like he was a huge part of her career to start with, really building up her confidence but now she’s flying without him. It’s painful to see.”

At the time it was reported that they split so she could concentrate on her career.

“He thought what she did with Jonathan was disrespectful and not cool, and he didn’t want to stay silent about it.

Scooter Braun insider

She certainly did that – she’s currently promoting Christy – her new biopic about the female boxing trailblazer Christy Martin – and there’s already been some Oscar buzz round her role.

It hasn’t just been work and no play though… over the summer she was first linked to Scooter – the billionaire businessman and record executive who became public enemy number one for Swifties worldwide in 2019 after he bought pop megastar Taylor Swift’s master recordings.

They started dating back in August after being seen spending time together at Jeff Bezos’s wedding in Italy two months before.

In August they were seen together in public for the first time on a date after having dinner at Jon & Vinny’s restaurant in Los Angeles.

The romance has proved to be more than just a summer fling, and Scooter seems to have well and truly fallen for her charms, even after the public humiliation of her arguing with her ex.

Get the look: Expert tips to swoon like Sweeney

Looking to create that doe-eyed look at home? Here, pro make-up artist Sarah-Jane Froom shares her exclusive top tips on how to achieve Sydney’s signature eyes…

TOP TIPS

• Start with a good primer: This ensures the eye shadow stays in place all day and gives a smooth base for blending.
• Define the crease: Use warm, neutral shades such as soft browns or terracotta to add depth to the crease. This helps enhance the natural shape of the eye without it feeling too heavy.
• Smoky eyes: Sydney often favours a smoky eye, typically with dark eyeliner along the lash line. I recommend blending a dark brown or black shadow into the liner to soften it and create that sultry, lived-in look.
• Lashes are essential: To get Sydney’s eye-popping lashes, I always recommend a volumising mascara. For a more dramatic effect, you can add some natural-looking false lashes that provide length and lift, but without being too over-the-top.
• Highlight the inner corners: This little trick instantly brightens the eyes, making them look more awake and larger – perfect for achieving Sydney’s signature bright-eyed gaze.

RECOMMENDED PRODUCTS

OVER one million people watched as Brittany Miller made the perfect roast potato over the weekend – for her perfect twins in her perfect home with her perfect smile.

But behind the 29-year-old influencer’s flawless façade lies a sinister web of lies which saw her fake cancer and con her followers. Now, for the first time we reveal the truth behind her shock scam – and why she’ll stop at nothing to achieve fame.

In 2017, Brittany was an unknown 21-year-old living in Oxfordshire, with dreams of becoming the next big social media influencer. Her small online community were then left shocked when she claimed to have been diagnosed with stage three gastric cancer. 

Her friends rallied around her – a crowdfunding page was set up to help support her financially and interest around her started growing.

But then just as fast as her cancer news started spreading – it then disappeared and wasn’t mentioned again. No trace of her extraordinary lie could be found online. 

It wasn’t until 2020 when Brittany collaborated with a breast cancer awareness charity that her former best friend decided to speak out – revealing the whole thing had been a scam. 

Brittany lied to us all – not just her friends but also her followers online

Former friend

The police have confirmed to The Sun that Brittany was indeed convicted of her crime – fraud by false representation.

In July 2020, she was given a conditional discharge for 12 months and was forced to pay compensation and costs to the Crown Prosecution Service. 

Her criminal record will no longer show up on basic checks, which has left her victims furious. 

Speaking anonymously, a former pal revealed that Brittany had in fact been the one to set up the JustGiving page and had begged her friends to circulate it for her.

They told us: “Brittany lied to us all – not just her friends but also her followers online. 

“Now people are following her and they have no idea what she is really like.

“Yes it happened years ago but lying about cancer is really wrong. Lots of her followers will have family members living with cancer but little do they know that every time they watch one of her videos, they are giving money to a fraud.”

MAKING CASH AND FALLING OUT

Indeed, Brittany has built herself a successful online career. Her videos are mostly her dishing up huge meals, making home comfort food or showing hauls from Temu or Shein.

It might not be groundbreaking stuff but she has 3.5 million people following her on TikTok.

Her boyfriend, Ash Griffiths, regularly features in her clips and in July last year she gave birth to identical twins, Elijah and Emiliano, who have also become a big part of her content. 

The couple recently moved into a plush new home in East Sussex, thanks to the proceeds from Brittany’s TikTok account.

Looking back, another friend recalled how Brittany would tell her she was in hospital, having treatment, including radiotherapy and would guilt trip her when she wasn’t available to hang out with her.

Things came to a head when the pal accused Brittany of stealing money from her grandma.

In messages seen by The Sun, someone appearing to be Brittany admits to taking the cash but blames it on the strong medication she was taking. The pair fell out shortly after. 

In the weeks and months after Brittany’s crime was revealed, there has been a lot of online speculation but she has never addressed what happened. 

The former pal told us: “Brittany has done what she can to erase her history and will delete any comments referencing it.

“It’s pretty scary to think she was happy to lie about cancer and makes you wonder just how far she will go to be super successful.

“This isn’t about getting revenge on her, it’s about people knowing the truth, which they deserve.”

PAST MISTAKES AND PRESENT ISSUES

The cancer scam wasn’t the only time Brittany has been caught telling lies.

In 2018, she was convicted of travelling on the railway without having paid the fare. She gave the officer of the railway company a fake name and address. She was fined £320. 

In recent months, Brittany’s parenting has also come under question and  she revealed how an anonymous hater had accused her of child abuse.

Ash, who is the father of their twins, was even quizzed on her being an alcoholic and a “druggy.”

I’m in the spotlight, I get millions of views every video, I get it, there’s nasty people out there

Brittany on her fame

Unlike in the past, Brittany decided to be very open about what had been going on and, in an emotional video, she acknowledged that someone reported her to social services, not only accusing her of child abuse, but holding her responsible for “lots of things”.

She confirmed that she “got questioned about everything” and was “really upset” when she spoke to them on the phone, so much so that she “kept having to pause” because she was crying so much.

No further action was taken but the whole incident left Brittany shaken up. 

She said at the time: “People are so desperate for my downfall and bringing me down, but bringing my children into it is ludicrous – why would you want to do that to them, innocent babies?

“Do what you want to me, whatever, but to them, innocent children who are clearly very happy and healthy babies, that’s crazy, you’re an actual weirdo, you’re an actual loser.”

Brittany added:  “Never in a million years did I think I’d have to go through something like this – obviously, I’m in the spotlight, I get millions of views every video, I get it, there’s nasty people out there, I understand that. 

“I just think, how cruel can you actually be? So, so cruel.”

It’s not just Brittany who has been left shaken up by it all – her former friends now fear they will be targeted by trolls accusing them of spreading lies to social services.

An insider said: “It feels like trouble follows Brittany. She might have this perfect life on social media but it’s not the truth. This drama with social services won’t be the last she’s involved in. But she’s built up an incredible following now – and they will support her, no matter what.”

Brittany has been contacted for comment.

A lot of people start collecting Social Security specifically because they’ve stopped working, or when they’re ready to stop. But you should know that if you wish to work while collecting Social Security, that option exists.

However, there are rules you should know in the context of working while on Social Security. Here’s a rundown.

Image source: Getty Images.

Working while on Social Security has its advantages

You may find that your Social Security benefits aren’t enough to cover your retirement expenses in full. If you don’t have an IRA or 401(k) to supplement with, then you may be inclined to work in some capacity to make up the difference.

Once you reach full retirement age, which is 67 for people born in 1960 or later, you don’t have to worry about having Social Security benefits withheld for working, regardless of what you earn. But if you’re collecting Social Security before having reached full retirement age, you’ll be subject to an earnings test whose limits change annually.

This year, for example, you can earn up to $23,400 without having any Social Security withheld if you’re under full retirement age. Beyond that point, you’ll have $1 in Social Security withheld per $2 of income.

The earnings-test limit is much higher if you’re reaching full retirement age at some point in 2025. In that case, it’s $62,160. And beyond that point, you’ll have $1 in Social Security withheld per $3 of income.

If you’re under full retirement age but also earn less than the earnings-test limit, you can enjoy a nice supplement to your income without any negative impact. And even if you have benefits withheld for exceeding the earnings-test limit, you’ll get that money back eventually.

Once you reach full retirement age, your monthly benefits will be recalculated and boosted to make up for withheld Social Security earlier on. That could be a good thing, because if you get used to living on less and your monthly benefits go up substantially, it could feel like a bonus of sorts.

You may get larger monthly benefits for another reason

In addition to putting more money in your pocket, working while on Social Security could set you up for larger benefits down the line. The formula used to calculate your benefits accounts for your 35 highest-paid years of earnings while adjusting earlier wages for inflation.

If you earn a lot while collecting Social Security, you might replace a year of lower income with a higher income. That could, in turn, lead to larger benefit payments.

Let’s say you worked for 35 years, but for three of those years, you only worked part-time and earned very little. If you work part-time while on Social Security and bring in $22,000 over the course of the year, you’ll be below the earnings-test limit.

But $22,000 may also be a lot more than what you earned during one of your years of part-time work, even with those earlier wages adjusted for inflation. So you may find that working leads to a more generous monthly payday for life once the Social Security Administration is able to factor your most recent wages into your benefit formula.

Know the rules

You may have heard that working while on Social Security is not a good idea because of the earnings-test limit. Or, you may be under the impression that if you’re getting monthly benefits, you’re barred from working, period.

It’s important to understand the rules of working while collecting Social Security so you’re able to supplement your income as you please. And you may find that holding down a job while receiving benefits gives you more money not just from those wages, but in the form of larger monthly Social Security checks later on.

FRANK LAMPARD has told England’s players that silence is golden if they want to earn a World Cup spot.

The former Three Lions great is advising Thomas Tuchel’s latest squad that mum’s the word when it comes to the German’s team selection.

4

4

The Three Lions’ chief has an array of attacking talent at his disposal and Lampard, who spent the majority of his 106-cap international career being shoehorned into a midfield with Steven Gerrard and Paul Scholes, knows all about compromise.

And he suggested that keeping schtum worked for him — as he went on to score 29 international goals and played in three World Cups and one European Championship as part of the ‘golden generation’.

He said: “I just got on with it. You’re a professional, you get on with it — you are playing different ways, you respect the manager and you crack on. You can have your own opinions — but I tended to keep mine to myself and think about what could I do best if I was asked to play.

“The truth is, I never really played for England much like I played for Chelsea.

“There were times, like in 2004, when Sven-Goran Eriksson was there when I played at the top of a diamond — that wasn’t my ideal, either — but if you are representing your country and the manager’s got an idea, you just go with it.

“That was my story and it’s been documented and people talk about it many years later with a different view to how it felt at the time,

“They just sort of say, ‘It did work or it didn’t work’. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t. But I’m not interested in that conversation.

“Personally, I got on with it, as did Stevie and Scholesy.”

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

Lampard is in a unique position to comment now he has crossed over to frontline management.

His Coventry side are sitting top of the Championship this season, having scored an impressive 27 goals this season as he attempts to orchestrate a return to the Premier League.

He believes that times may have changed and that Tuchel might  operate a more relaxed policy.

The German has plenty of options up front — all of whom will make a claim to start alongside skipper Harry Kane.

Bukayo Saka, Anthony Gordon, Eberechi Eze, Jarrod Bowen, Marcus Rashford and Ollie Watkins were all in the squad for the double header against Wales and Latvia.

But the likes of Jude Bellingham, Cole Palmer, Phil Foden and Jack Grealish will all be wanting to board the plane to North America for the World Cup next summer.

There are only so many places in Tuchel’s starting XI — and Lampard added: “Now I’m a manager, I understand selection difficulties.

“I’ve had big squads at Chelsea. When I was first there, I went back and they had the 29 players — of which some were disgruntled — that’s another story.

“But in terms of trying to fit players in, you have to make tough decisions as a manager — you have  ideas, you have to work with the squad you’ve got and think, ‘What is the best?’ So that’s why I never really comment on what decisions other managers take because I don’t know the context, what they’re thinking and who and how they want to play.

4

4

“However, I do think it’s more common in the modern day for a conversation to be more open between player and manager.

“It goes manager by manager – some don’t want to talk and say, “This is the team, I’m the boss, you get on with it.’

“There are those who will have individual conversations, and then other people will open up to the group. That all depends on who’s in charge. And players react differently.

“I think there’s a balance to it. I think the players have to feel your authority and believe in what you’re doing.

“It’s not always an open conversation. Our job is to get that bit right. And our job is to be like that.

“But as a manager also, you want to have constant communication in that players feel that they can speak to you because you might find something that you didn’t know.

‘A DIFFERENT ANIMAL’

“England’s a bit of a different animal because you only turn up every now and again.

“At Chelsea, sometimes you’re playing at the weekend and through the week, and you’re training every day and the conversations are there throughout the year much more.” One chat with a great former Chelsea manager sticks in Lampard’s mind.

He added: “I remember once having a conversation with  Carlo Ancelotti about my position at Chelsea when he played a diamond formation.

“It didn’t feel really fluid, not just for me, but for the team.

“That was one of the beauties of Carlo, he would be very open with that chat and I’m not saying he changed his mind, but he was taking on information and then adapting around it.

“That’s why he’s one of the greatest managers, that’s his style — I think those things should be authentic.

“If you want to do your thing and you stick to your guns, you may  succeed or you may fail, that’s what you do. That’s one person’s approach.

“I am more open with my players to try to speak to them, because I want to get better. So every conversation I have with a player may help me, whether I agree with it or not.”

“In the end, the decision is mine — and then hopefully it works.”

JODIE Whittaker and Suranne Jones are joined by a host of familiar faces for their new thriller Frauds.

Here’s everything you need to know about whether the crime caper is based on a true story and how to watch it.

4

4

4

ITV’s Frauds is about two former partners-in-crime who reunite for one last audacious heist after one of them is released from prison on compassionate grounds.

The synopsis for the series reads: “Bert and Sam embark on the most audacious of art thefts, gathering a talented team of outcasts to help them plan this audacious crime.

“Whilst the team must overcome numerous challenges before they can pull off the heist, it’s the power struggle between Bert and Sam that threatens to derail their plans and destroy them both.

“Set against the epic rolling hills of southern Spain and the dark criminal underbelly that casts a shadow over the glistening coast, Frauds is a complex and addictive story of friendship, deception and survival.”

It blends dark comedy with the cinematic heist genre, set against the scenic backdrop of southern Spain — but is it a true story?

When is Frauds on?

Frauds premiered at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX on Sunday, October 5, 2025.

The series includes six episodes airing on consecutive Sunday and Monday nights over three weeks.

All episodes are also available on ITVX for streaming.

Is Frauds based on a true story?

Frauds is a work of fiction created by Suranne Jones and co-writer Anne-Marie O’Connor.

The plot revolves around Bert, who has been in a Spanish prison for ten years and is released due to a terminal cancer diagnosis.

Upon release, she reconnects with her former partner Sam to plan a multi-million-pound art heist.

While the series captures the feel of real criminal undertakings, it is not an adaptation of a true crime or real-life story.

What is the Frauds cast?

Frauds tells the story of Bert and Sam, whose toxic friendship will be pushed to the ultimate test.

Bert tries to lure her pal out of criminal retirement to pull off a multi-million-pound art heist.

Suranne Jones stars as Bert — the career criminal recently released from prison.

4

Jodie Whittaker features as Sam, her estranged former partner in crime.

Lost Boys and Fairies actress Elizabeth Berrington plays a master illusionist, while I May Destroy You’s Karan Gill portrays the world’s greatest forger.

Talisa Garcia features as drag star Miss Take, and Christian Cooke takes on the role of moneylender Deegs.

Frauds’ cast is an ensemble of British and Spanish actors, reflecting the series’ international setting — the show was shot in Spain.

Frauds was created and executive produced by Suranne Jones and Anne-Marie O’Connor.

The full cast is as follows:

• Jodie Whittaker as Sam
• Suranne Jones as Bert
• Elizabeth Berrington as Jackie Diamond
• Lee Boardman as The Great Diavolo
• Christian Cooke as Deegs
• Kate Fleetwood as Celine
• Talisa Garcia as Miss Take
• Karan Gill as Bilal
• Horacio Colomé as Miguel
• Thais Martin as Sam’s long-lost daughter
• Nansi Nsue as Amaya
• Abdul Salis as Mateo
• Victor Solé as Carlos Pérez
• Javier Taboada as Blas
• Karise Yansen as Komet

Kelly Hawes, who has appeared on Channel 4’s Married At First Sight UK, has advised viewers of an important legal matter to bear in mind when watching the show

A wedding celebrant has shared the “shocking truth” about Married At First Sight UK after series 10 of the social experiment saw the introduction of nine new newlywedded couples. The Channel 4 show first aired in 2015 shortly after the success of its Australian counterpart and has grown in popularity ever since.

Hertfordshire-based celebrant Kelly Hawes, who has appeared on the programme herself, has taken to TikTok to point out a key legal matter when it comes to the nuptials. “One question I am often asked is do they actually get married on Married At First Sight UK?” she began in a video.

She continued: “Well, no. They don’t do the legal registration of marriage. What they are having is a commitment ceremony.”

Kelly acknowledged that this is a “good thing”, however, as she declared: “The last thing we want to do is add to the number of divorced couples.

“This way, if the relationship doesn’t pan out, then really it’s just a relationship that hasn’t worked – rather than a marriage.”

One sceptic penned in response: “So they’re [sic] not actually getting married then. So it’s not marriage at first sight then.”

A second person noted: “So the very title is misleading? ‘Married’ at first sight. As opposed to ‘Committed’ at first sight.”

It prompted Kelly to explain: “TV is for entertainment value remember – and the title is to catch attention. At the end of the day the experiment is to match two people who should be compatible for marriage.”

Another TikTok viewer added: “They used to in the very early days, the problem was they then had to get legally divorced, the divorce meeting was shown on the show. That was back when the people on the show were genuinely looking for love and not wannabes wanting airtime and publicity.”

McAlister Family Law explains that for the first five series in the UK, couples were in fact legally married. Partner, Lisa Brown says for the purposes of the show, the audience need only buy into the principle – but legally, getting married is very complex.

“Being married is a change to your legal status and if things don’t work out you have to apply to the court to either have that marriage annulled or get divorced,” she explained. “Further, when couples get married, they gain the ability to make a financial claim against the other person under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.”

Brown continued: “One of the peculiarities of the law as it stands is that a couple could live together for 25 years but not be able to make a financial claim against each other (save in limited circumstances) but somebody can get legally married at first sight, never live together and divorce as soon as they can and they would be able to make a claim.

“That claim could include property being transferred to them, a share of the other’s pension, a lump sum of money being paid and/or monthly sums being paid (spousal maintenance). In Married At First Sight circumstances, the reality is that it is unlikely that such a claim would be particularly fruitful and generally the expectation would be that they would exit the marriage with what they brought in but the ability to do it remains.”

Married at First Sight UK Season 10 continues on Sunday night on E4.

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

During this week’s White House press conference in which President Trump named the over-the-counter drug Tylenol as a possible cause of rising autism rates, he did not mince words, urging pregnant women to “fight like hell” not to take it.

But outside those remarks in the Roosevelt Room — during which Trump himself acknowledged “I’m not so careful with what I say” — the discussion on the common fever and pain reliever’s role during pregnancy is a lot more nuanced.

What the research on Tylenol use during pregnancy actually says

Physicians, researchers on the very studies cited in support of Trump’s position and even other members of the president’s administration are largely united on a few key facts: untreated fevers in pregnancy pose real risks to the fetus, acetaminophen (Tylenol’s active ingredient) remains the safest medication to treat them and any pregnant person seeking advice on the issue should consult their doctor.

“All that we should be asking of the medical profession [is] to actually weigh the risks and benefits for the women, with the women, and be cautious about chronic use of pain medications,” said Dr. Beate Ritz, a UCLA professor of epidemiology who co-authored a paper published last month that the White House cited as evidence for the link between Tylenol and autism.

Ritz said it has been misinterpreted.

The conclusion of the paper, which reviewed existing studies on the topic, was that the association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and later diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders in kids was strong enough to merit doctors’ consideration when determining how to treat fever or pain in pregnancy. The group did not determine a causal relationship between the drug and autism, or suggest barring the drug altogether, she said.

“Looking at all of these studies, yes, there is a risk,” Ritz said. “It’s not very big, but it’s there, but the risk increases are more seen in regular users of Tylenol. This is not a woman who has a fever and takes three Tylenols.”

“There is always a weighing of the risks and the benefits, and fever in women is no good either. … Not having to take any pain medications when you are in severe pain or in chronic pain is also very cruel,” she said. “We all should have an interest in helping out here, making the right decisions without blaming the victim and putting it all on the individual woman.”

Her co-author, University of Massachusetts epidemiologist Ann Bauer, has made similar statements.

“What we recommend is judicious use — the lowest effective dose [for] the shortest duration of time under medical guidance and supervision, tailored to the individual,” Bauer told the news outlet Politico.

The administration’s confusing recommendations

Ultimately, that’s what the administration is recommending as well.

The letter that U.S. Food and Drug Administrator Dr. Marty Makary sent to physicians this week made clear that “a causal relationship” between autism and acetaminophen “has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature.”

It went on to recommend that clinicians consider limiting their use of acetaminophen for routine low-grade fevers during pregnancy, while noting that medical advice “should also be balanced with the fact that acetaminophen is the safest over-the-counter alternative in pregnancy among all analgesics and antipyretics.” (An analgesic is a pain reliever; an antipyretic reduces fever.)

Untreated fevers during pregnancy are associated with higher rates of birth defects, particularly those of the heart, brain and spinal cord; premature birth; low birth weight; neurodevelopmental disorders including autism; and fetal death, said Dr. E. Nicole Teal, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at UC San Diego.

“The FDA’s letter, while significantly more nuanced than the president’s comments on the issue, still gives too much weight to findings from poorly designed studies,” she said.

She said she will continue to prescribe acetaminophen to pregnant patients who need to treat fevers or severe pain, as it has the fewest known risks in pregnancy.

Are there other pain-relief and fever-reducing drugs that can be used during pregnancy?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen (often sold as Advil) or naproxen (often sold as Aleve) are linked to problems with blood vessel and kidney development, as well as oligohydramnios, a condition in which there isn’t enough amniotic fluid to support a healthy pregnancy. Aspirin raises the risk of bleeding complications, and narcotics — which can relieve pain but not fever — pose addiction risks for the mother and infant alike, Teal said.

She referred to a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noting that two decades of research on the question had failed to find a causal relationship between acetaminophen and autism.

“Acetaminophen is one of the few options available to pregnant patients to treat pain and fever, which can be harmful to pregnant people when left untreated,” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists president Dr. Steven J. Fleischman said in the statement.

The group also noted that reviews in 2015 and 2017 from the FDA and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine respectively found no risks associated with appropriate usage of the drug in pregnancy.

How to navigate government communications around Tylenol use

Nonetheless, the mixed messaging from the Trump administration about Tylenol seems likely to continue.

The Department of Health and Human Services this week reposted a 2017 tweet from the Tylenol brand’s account that said, “We actually don’t recommend using any of our products while pregnant.”

A spokesperson for Kenvue, the company that owns Tylenol, said the post was taken out of context and incomplete.

“Consistent with regulations, our label states clearly ‘if pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use,’ ” Melissa Witt said in an email. “We do not make recommendations on taking any medications in pregnancy because that is the job of a healthcare provider.”

Vice President JD Vance offered similar guidance this week.

“My guidance to pregnant women would be very simple, which is follow your doctor. Right?” Vance said in an interview with the outlet NewsNation after Trump’s press conference. “Talk to your doctor about these things.”

Proposition 50, the California-slaps-back initiative, is cruising to a comfortable victory on Nov. 4, a slam dunk for Gov. Gavin Newsom and efforts to get even with Texas.

Or not.

It’s actually a highly competitive contest between those wanting to offset the GOP’s shameless power grab and opponents of Democrats’ retaliatory gerrymander — with many voters valuing California’s independent redistricting commission and still making up their minds.

Obviously, both things can’t be true, so which is it?

That depends on which of the polls you choose to believe.

Political junkies, and the news outlets that service their needs, abhor a vacuum. So there’s no lack of soundings that purport to show just where Californians’ heads are at a mere six weeks before election day — which, in truth, is not all that certain.

Newsom’s pollster issued results showing Prop. 50 winning overwhelming approval. A UC Berkeley/L.A. Times survey showed a much closer contest, with support below the vital 50% mark. Others give the measure a solid lead.

Not all polls are created equal.

“It really matters how a poll is done,” said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at the Pew Research Center, one of the country’s top-flight polling organizations. “That’s especially true today, when response rates are so low [and] it’s so difficult to reach people, especially by telephone. You really do have to consider how it’s done, where it comes from, who did it, what their motivation is.”

Longtime readers of this space, if any exist, know how your friendly columnist feels about horse-race polls. Our best advice remains the same it’s always been: Ignore them.

Take a hike. Read a book. Bake a batch of muffins. Better still, take some time to educate yourself on the pros and cons of the question facing California, then make an informed decision.

Realizing, however, the sun will keep rising and setting, that tides will ebb and flow, that pollsters and pundits will continue issuing their prognostications to an eager and ardent audience, here are some suggestions for how to assay their output.

The most important thing to remember is that polls are not gospel truth, flawless forecasts or destiny carved in implacable stone. Even the best survey is nothing more than an educated guess at what’s likely to happen.

That said, there are ways to evaluate the quality of surveys and determine which are best consumed with a healthy shaker of salt and which should be dismissed altogether.

Given the opportunity, take a look at the methodology — it’s usually there in the fine print — which includes the number of people surveyed, the duration of the poll and whether interviews were done in more than one language.

Size matters.

“When you’re trying to contact people at random, you’re getting certain segments of the public, rather than the general population,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll and a collaborator with The Times. “So what needs to happen in order for a survey to be representative of the overall population … you need large samples.”

Which are expensive and the reason some polls skimp on the number of people they interview.

The most conscientious pollsters invest considerable time and effort figuring out how to model their voter samples — that is, how to best reflect the eventual composition of the electorate. Once they finish their interviews, they weight the result to see that it includes the proper share of men and women, young and old, and other criteria based on census data.

Then pollsters might adjust those results to match the percentage of each group they believe will turn out for a given election.

The more people a pollster interviews, the greater the likelihood of achieving a representative sample.

That’s why the duration of a survey is also something to consider. The longer a poll is conducted — or out in the field, as they say in the business — the greater the chances of reflecting the eventual turnout.

It’s also important in a polyglot state like California that a poll is not conducted solely in English. To do so risks under-weighting an important part of the electorate; a lack of English fluency shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of political engagement.

“There’s no requirement that a person be able to speak English in order to vote,” said Keeter, of the Pew Research Center. “And in the case of some populations, particularly immigrant groups, that have been in the United States for a long time, they may be very well-established voters but still not be proficient in English to the level of being comfortable taking a survey.”

It’s also important to know how a poll question is phrased and, in the case of a ballot measure, how it describes the matter voters are being asked to decide. How closely does the survey track the ballot language? Are there any biases introduced into the poll? (“Would you support this measure knowing its proponents abuse small animals and promote gum disease?”)

Something else to watch for: Was the poll conducted by a political party, or for a candidate or group pushing a particular agenda? If so, be very skeptical. They have every reason to issue selective or one-sided findings.

Transparency is key. A good pollster will show his or her work, as they used to say in the classroom. If they won’t, there’s good reason to question their findings, and well you should.

A sensible person wouldn’t put something in their body without being 100% certain of its content. Treat your brain with the same care.

An Emmerdale star suffered an injury away from the set of the ITV soap and script writers had to acknowledge it in the latest episode of the long-running programme

Emmerdale writers had to incorporate the real-life injury of one of its stars into Monday night’s episode. The ITV soap was in its usual slot at the beginning of the week, and Mary Goskirk (Louise Jameson) was seen walking with a cane.

In the Woolpack, Tracy Robinson (Amy Walsh) spotted Mary’s ailment when she ordered a drink and asked: “So, did you have a fall?”, but Mary seemingly issued a joke back.

As Mary handed her a glass of white wine, she told her: “No, I did it bungee jumping!”

Soaps tend to film around six to eight weeks ahead of broadcast, and actress Louise, 74, who is also known for her roles in other TV staples like EastEnders and Doctor Who, first told her fans of her leg injury in July, and noted that it had forced her to take time out of a her one woman show.

At the time, she wrote on X: “I’ve taken the ‘break a leg’ advice to its extreme. Apologies for the cancelled shows in Harrogate and Leeds of SHAKESPEARE’S MISTRESS. Rescheduling for the Autumn.

“In the meantime I lie here in my splint. Big shout out to LGI @NHS who took care of me last Monday [heart emoji].”

When a fan asked her: “Get well soon Louise is there an exciting tale behind the injury? Xx,” she replied: “Nope… A boring old fall xxx”

Earlier this year, fans were left uncertain whether an injury had actually occurred in real life after Mary sported a bandage wrapped around her hand and lower arm.

The character Mary explained that she’d fallen down the last couple of steps of the staircase at home, no doubt hitting or landing on the arm. She didn’t say specially what the injury was or if it was broken or sprained.

What she did say though was that she was fine after the fall, and would need a few weeks of rest before she could get the bandages off. Jacob appeared alarmed though, offering to take a look at the injury. She seemed keen to brush it under the carpet while it was clear Jacob was worried. It wasn’t made clear if Mary went to hospital or a doctor to get it checked out, or if she bandaged it up herself.

It was not clarified at the time whether it was an injury that had happened in real life, but it could have been a similar situation with scriptwriters having to work it into the story.

This often happens, and just recently on Coronation Street Kit Green actor Jacob Roberts had surgery on his leg and it was seemingly written into the show. There have been many other instances over the years where an injury or something else is written in.

Prior to that, Simon Gregson, who has played taxi driver Steve McDonald on Coronation Street since 1989, sustained a leg injury and it had to be put into the show.

He said: “I’ve broken my leg. I literally just went over and rolled my ankle, outside the back of the house. It was done in six places.

“I’m able to drive now, but walking across wet fields is a no for me. Because if I slip it’s back to square one.”

Asked if Corrie had to write his broken leg into the script, he said: “Yeah, they’ve written it in. They just kind of spoke about it. It’s like when Bobby Ewing woke up in the shower [in Dallas]. No one cares after about five minutes.”

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 7:30pm on ITV1 and ITVX, with an hour-long episode on Thursdays. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Robert Redford looked like he walked out of the sea to become a Hollywood god. He was physically flawless. Pacific blue eyes, salt-bleached hair, a friendly surfer-boy squint. Born in Santa Monica to a milkman and a housewife, his first memory was of sliding off his mother’s lap at the Aero Theatre as a toddler and running toward the light, causing such a ruckus that the projectionist had to stop the film.

He definitely grew up to grab the movies’ attention. He wasn’t just telegenic but talented, although that wasn’t a requirement for stardom when he emerged in the late ’50s when the industry was scooping up hunks like him by the bucket for television and B-movies. All a male ingenue needed to do was smile and kiss the girl. It would have been so easy to do that a couple times and wind up doing it forever. You can understand why so many forgotten actors made that deal, without realizing that forever can lead to a fast retirement.

But if Redford had sensed at 2 years old that he was meant to be onscreen, by his 20s, he insisted he’d only do it on his own terms. At 27, with nearly zero name recognition, he horrified his then-agent by turning down a $10,000-a-week TV gig as a strait-laced psychiatrist to do a Mike Nichols theater production for just $110. His rejection of the easy money was an unusual choice, particularly for a cash-strapped father of two.

To appreciate Redford fully, we have to applaud not only the work he did but the simple, feel-good roles he rejected. He could have become a celebrity without breaking a sweat as the war hero, the jock, the husband, the cowboy, the American ideal made incarnate. Yet, he had the rare ability to sidestep what audiences thought we wanted from him to instead give us something we didn’t know we needed: selfish victors (“Downhill Racer”), self-destructive veterans (“The Great Waldo Pepper”) and tragic men who did everything right and still failed (2013’s “All Is Lost”).

In spirit, Redford never strayed far from the teen rebel he’d been — a truant who’d skipped school, stole booze and crashed race cars — and the radical artist he hurled himself into becoming by quitting everything traditional (the football team, his fraternity, college altogether) to move to Paris where he took up oil painting and marched against the Soviets. He might have excelled at the sleazy roles that made Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino famous. On the outside, he knew they didn’t fit, either.

Sometimes Redford said no even when I wish he’d have said yes. Imagine if he’d agreed to face off against Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Instead, he told Nichols he’d rather tangle with Anne Bancroft in “The Graduate,” only to be rejected as too handsome for the role. “Can you honestly imagine a guy like you having difficulty seducing a woman?” Nichols told him.

Instead, Redford used his all-American good looks to make us question our flattering image of ourselves. In the 1974 adaptation of “The Great Gatsby,” he was the first person you’d think of to play the title role because he fully understood the point of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book — how it felt to represent our country’s whole image of success while knowing it’s a phony put-on. I imagine him making a devil’s bargain with his face, vowing that he won’t hide behind goofy accents and stunt wigs the way other too-handsome oddballs do, if he’s allowed to use his appeal like a Trojan horse.

If there’s one thing that unites his roles, from 1966’s “The Chase” to “Lions for Lambs,” it’s his willingness to give the screen his full charisma — to let audiences stare at him for the whole running time of a movie — as long as we’ll agree to ask what’s lurking in his underbelly. Most often, we’ll find frustrated idealism just at the moment it starts to sour.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

The films of the 1960s and ’70s that made Redford an icon mostly cleave into two categories: scamps and truth-seekers. (The latter can overlap with suckers and stooges.) His antihero crooks in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and “The Sting” captured something in our national id, our not-so-secret belief that it’s OK to break a few rules to get ahead — that we can forgive a sin if we like the sinner. I like how those movies give you a guilty little tingle about rooting for Redford even when it means scratching off a couple of the Ten Commandments. (Thou shalt not steal unless you’re Robert Redford, who got away with it all the way through 2018’s “The Old Man and the Gun.”)

Lately, the Redford roles I’ve been thinking about are the ones where his all-American appeal makes us examine all of America, good and bad. The two that instantly jump to mind are his pair of political thrillers: “Three Days of the Condor,” in which he plays a CIA agent on the run from his own co-workers, and “All the President’s Men,” in which he doggedly uncovers the Watergate scandal. Both films believe in the power of getting the truth out to the press; neither is so naive as to think the truth alone will save the day.

But let’s not overlook “The Candidate,” a movie that has Redford as underqualified political scion Bill McKay, pressed to run for governor of California. “He’s not going to get his ass kicked — he’s cute,” his father (Melvyn Douglas) says. Meanwhile, his own campaign team cares more about the length of his sideburns than ideas in his head. Released in 1972, five years into former actor Ronald Reagan’s own governorship, the movie hammers home that superficiality might be democracy’s downfall — and the stakes are bigger than who is Hollywood‘s latest heartthrob.

Vice President Dan Quayle once said “The Candidate” inspired him, triggering its screenwriter Jeremy Larner to dash this off in an op-ed: “Mr. Quayle, this was not a how-to movie, it was a watch-out movie. And you are what we should be watching out for!”

In his later years, Redford became a filmmaker himself and I can picture him pulling Brad Pitt aside on the set of “A River Runs Through It” to whisper: You don’t have to stay in that pretty–boy box. Feel free to get weird. As an actor and director, Redford continued to create characters who uncovered our our hidden rot, whether in our purported national pastime, baseball (“The Natural”), or in our actual one, watching television (“Quiz Show”). His turn in “Indecent Proposal” as the wealthy man who offers to rent his employee’s wife lives on as shorthand for tycoons who assume they can buy whatever, and whoever, they want. When he eventually signed on for a superhero film, it was, fittingly, alongside Captain America, that upright paragon of virtue — and Redford played the villain.

What Quayle missed about “The Candidate” is that when it comes to a Robert Redford movie, truth is never as plain as what your eyes can see. There’s always a deeper level and there’s no guarantee that justice would win. In fact, I’d argue in Redford’s films, it rarely does.

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump filed a $15-billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and four of its journalists on Monday, according to court documents.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida names several articles and one book written by two of the publication’s journalists and published in the lead up to the 2024 election, saying they are “part of a decades-long pattern by the New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump.”

“Defendants published such statements negligently, with knowledge of the falsity of the statements, and/or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity,” the lawsuit says.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment early Tuesday.

In a Truth Social post announcing the lawsuit, Trump accused The New York Times of lying about him and defaming him, saying it has become “a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.”

Trump has gone after other media outlets, including filing a $10-billion defamation lawsuit against the The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein.

A few hours after Charlie Kirk was killed, Sean Feucht, an influential right-wing Christian worship leader, filmed a selfie video from his home in California, his eyes brimming with tears.

The shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative activists, Feucht declared, was no less than “a line in the sand” in a country descending into a spiritual darkness.

“The enemy thinks that he won, that there was a battle that was won today,” he said, referencing Satan. “No, man, there’s going to be millions of bold voices raised up out of the sacrifice and the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.”

Soon afterward, Pastor Matt Tuggle, who leads the Salt Lake City campus of the San Diego-based Awaken megachurch, posted a video of Kirk’s killing on Instagram, adding the caption: “If your pastor isn’t telling you the left believes a evil demonic belief system you are in the wrong church!”

People place lighted candles below a photo of Charlie Kirk at a vigil in his memory in Orem, Utah.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

Kirk’s death has triggered a range of reaction, much of it mournful sympathy for the 31-year-old activist and his family. But it also has sparked conspiracy theories, hot-take presumptions the left was responsible and calls for vengeance against Kirk’s perceived enemies.

At a vigil for Kirk in Huntington Beach this week, some attendees waved white flags depicting a red cross and the word “Jesus,” while some chanted, “White men, fight back!” Kirk spread a philosophy that liberals sought to disempower men, and some of his male supporters see his killing as an attack against them.

Whether the calls for vengeance will ebb or intensify remains to be seen, especially with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s announcement Friday that a suspect in the fatal shooting, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, had been arrested after a family member turned him in.

In life, Kirk spoke of what he called a “spiritual battle” being waged in the United States between Christians and a Democratic Party that “supports everything that God hates.”

In death, Kirk, one of the Republican Party’s most influential power brokers, is being hailed by conservative evangelical pastors and GOP politicians as a Christian killed for his religious beliefs.

President Trump called Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom,” and ordered flags to be flown at half-staff in his honor. He blamed Kirk’s death on the rhetoric of the “radical left.” Vice President JD Vance, who helped carry Kirk’s casket to Air Force Two, retweeted a post Kirk wrote on X last month reading, “It’s all about Jesus.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, quoting Jesus, wrote on X: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

A woman lays her head down on a seat during a vigil at CenterPoint Church for Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

Experts on faith and far-right extremism say they are troubled by the religious glorification of Kirk in this era of increased political violence — and the potential vengeance that may spring from it. The activist’s death, they say, seems to have ignited various factions on the right, ranging from white supremacists to hard-core Christian nationalists.

“The ‘spiritual warfare’ rhetoric will only increase,” and Kirk is now being lifted up as “a physical manifestation” of a religious battle, said Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia who has written a forthcoming book about Christian nationalism that prominently features Kirk.

“Spiritual warfare rhetoric was a big part of Jan. 6,” he said of the deadly 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. “Making a martyr out of Charlie Kirk will change our nation in severe ways.”

Samuel Perry, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma and expert on Christian nationalism, said he is a Christian himself but that religion, cynically used, “has the potential to amplify what would otherwise be very secular political conflicts between Democrats and Republicans.”

“What if those are amplified with a cosmic and ultimate significance?” he said. “It becomes, ‘This is God vs. Satan. This is angels vs. demons — and if we lose this next election, we plunge the nation into a thousand years of darkness.’ … It basically provokes extremism.”

Feucht, a Christian nationalist and failed Republican congressional candidate from Northern California, said that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” and that, in the wake of Kirk’s death, “we have to do something.”

Kirk — who rallied his millions of online followers to vote for Trump in the 2024 election — declared that God was on the side of American conservatives and that there was “no separation of church and state.” He was also known for his vitriol against racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ+ people, childless women, progressives and others who disagreed with him.

Kirk called transgender people “a throbbing middle finger to God.” He said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “a huge mistake” and called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “awful.” On his podcast, he called with a smirk for “some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area [who] wants to really be a midterm hero” to bail out of jail the man who attacked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer in their home in 2022.

A memorial is set up for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

In 2023, Kirk sat on the stage of Awaken Church in Salt Lake City and said: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Two days before his death, Kirk retweeted a video of himself saying that a “spiritual battle is coming for the West,” with “wokeism or marxism combining with Islamism” to go after “the American way of life, which is, by the way, Christendom.”

Perry said, “There’s no need to whitewash the legacy of Charlie Kirk.”

“This is a tragedy, and no one deserves to die this way,” Perry said. “Yet, at the same time, Charlie Kirk is very much part of this polarization story in the U.S. who used quite divisive rhetoric, ‘us vs. them, the left is evil.’”

Perry noted that Kirk’s Turning Point USA had placed him on its Professor Watchlist, a website that says it aims to expose professors “who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.” The entry on Perry flags him for “Anti-Judeo-Christian Values.”

Some on the right say their recent fiery words are only a response to the hateful rhetoric of the left. One widely shared example: Two days before Kirk’s killing, the feminist website Jezebel published an article titled, “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.” It has since been removed and replaced by a letter from the site’s editor saying it had been “intended as satire and made it absolutely clear that we wished no physical harm.”

Kirk was killed by a single sniper-style shot to the neck Wednesday during an outdoor speaking event at Utah Valley University.

After announcing the suspect’s arrest Friday, Gov. Cox said he had prayed that the shooter was not from Utah, “that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country.” But that prayer, he said, “was not answered the way I hoped for.”

He then said that political violence “metastasizes because we can always point the finger at the other side” and that, “at some point, we have to find an offramp, or it’s going to get much, much worse.”

Some of Kirk’s most prominent evangelical followers have said that his death represents an attack on conservative Christian values and that he was gunned down for speaking “the truth.”

Jon Fleischman, Orange County-based conservative blogger and former executive director of the California Republican Party, who started out as a conservative college activist, knew Kirk and said “there is one hell of a martyr situation going on.”

“A lot of people are getting activated and are going to walk the walk, talk the talk, and give money as their way of trying to process and deal with losing someone they care about,” he told The Times.

In recent years, Kirk had become more outspoken about his Christian faith. He founded the nonprofit Turning Point USA in 2012 as an avowedly secular youth organization and became known for his college campus tours, with videos of his debates with liberal college students racking up tens of millions of views.

But in 2020, during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, college campuses closed. Kirk started speaking at churches that stayed open in violation of local lockdown and mask orders, including Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Ventura County, which was led by Pastor Rob McCoy, a former Thousand Oaks mayor.

McCoy is now the co-chair of Turning Point USA Faith, which encourages pastors to become more politically outspoken. McCoy, who could not be reached for comment, wrote in a statement Friday: “For those who rejoiced over his murder, you are instruments of evil and I implore you to repent. For those of you who mock prayer, you would do well to reconsider. Prayer doesn’t change God, it changes us toward a more peaceful and civil life.”

Professor Boedy said McCoy turned Kirk toward Christian nationalism, specifically the Seven Mountains Mandate — the idea that Christians should try to hold sway over the seven pillars of cultural influence: arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media and religion.

Christian nationalism, which is rejected by mainline Christians, holds that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the faith should have primacy in government and law.

Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and a professor emeritus at Cal State San Bernardino, said, “the more violent fringes of Christian nationalism have disturbing aspects that are eliminationist and antidemocratic.”

He noted that some of the same Christian nationalists and white supremacists who are now calling Kirk a martyr already deified Trump, especially after he survived two assassination attempts on the campaign trail last year and said he had been “saved by God to make America great again.”

Levin said many Christian nationalists portray Trump as “an armed Christian warrior protecting America from a disturbing assortment of immigrants, religious minorities, genders and sexual orientations.” And so, when he uses martyr language to describe Kirk, his adherents latch on.

“Where do martyrs come from? From violent conflicts and wars,” Levin said. “The fact of the matter is that this is a moment that Trump could have more effectively seized, but he veered into divisive territory.”

California Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) also called Kirk “a modern day martyr.” In a statement, Jones quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Jones wrote: “Let us take care that we allow that tree to grow and blossom as it feeds on the lifeblood of Charles J. Kirk in the years to come.”

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Sterlin Harjo perfected the “art of the hang” with the co-creation of his first television series, “Reservation Dogs.” The FX drama followed a group of Indigenous teens living on a fictional Oklahoma reservation, turning their everyday routine into high art — and is one of the best television shows of the 2020s.

Now, Harjo, 45, is tackling another type of genre: crime. His forthcoming series “The Lowdown,” premiering Sept. 23 with two episodes on FX, follows self-proclaimed “truthstorian” Lee Raybon (Ethan Hawke) on a mission to unearth buried truths about Tulsa’s problematic history while exposing present-day corruption. He’s a disheveled figure who drives around town in a tattered van and lives above the rare bookstore that he also happens to own. But when his latest exposé for a local publication calls into question a prominent Tulsa family, his investigation takes him on a dangerous road from the city’s seedy underbelly to its highest corridors of power.

Fall Preview 2025

The only guide you need to fall entertainment.

“‘Rez Dogs’ was my love letter to rural Oklahoma and where I grew up. ‘The Lowdown’ is my love letter to Tulsa, where I currently live,” says Harjo, who produces, writes and directs on the new series. “You see the beauty and the darkness. You see everything.”

The eight-episode drama, best described as Tulsa noir, also stars Oklahoma expats Tim Blake Nelson, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tracy Letts as well as Keith David. Appearances by “Rez Dog” alumni include Kaniehtiio Horn (a.k.a. the Deer Lady).

Harjo, who is a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and is of Muscogee descent, spoke with The Times about his love for Oklahoma, the challenges of following a celebrated show like “Reservation Dogs” and how “The Lowdown” is loosely based on his own experience working with a guerrilla journalist.

“Rez Dogs” was such an exceptional series that garnered critical acclaim across all four seasons. With “The Lowdown,” was it hard to not compete with that previous success?

I didn’t think about it. My experience in this industry has been people telling me that whatever the thing is that I want to make can’t be made, and me thinking, I’m going to make it anyway, then forging ahead. Then it finds an audience, and people enjoy it. I had pitched “Rez Dogs” a few different times, and it was always soft pitches because I was nervous of being laughed out of the room. No one was interested. But having the confidence of my friend [“Rez Dogs” co-creator and writer] Taika Waititi and FX … they were open to the way that we told the story. I think they were kind of blown away. So they made it. They never said no. But I’ve had many ‘no’s and many eye rolls.

Ethan Hawke stars in “The Lowdown” as Lee Raybon, a self-proclaimed “truthstorian” and owner of a rare bookshop. He’s based on Tulsa journalist Lee Roy Chapman.

(Shane Brown / FX)

Hawke plays Lee Raybon in “The Lowdown,” a figure who is obsessed with getting to the bottom of things, to the point where he neglects many other aspects of his life. What inspired the creation of that character?

The story is fictional, but the character was inspired by someone I worked with named Lee Roy Chapman at This Land Press magazine. He was very much a soldier for truth and I would ride shotgun and make these videos about the underground, unknown histories of Tulsa. The series was called “Tulsa Public Secrets.” We were this startup, full of piss and vinegar, trying to tell the truth and write about our community and make documentaries about our community. It was about a pent-up need for truth in this city. That push to tell the truth and find truth and tell our story and create a narrative around us. It gave us and the city an identity, something to hold on to.

“The Lowdown” unfolds at a really brisk pace, yet it also has the kick-back vibe of “Rez Dogs.”

There’s the art of the hang, where the genre is people hanging out. Look at “Rez Dogs” or “Dazed and Confused.” There’s an art to hanging and being with characters, and it feels OK to just sit there with them. I think “The Lowdown” has a good balance of that, where you could just hang with [Raybon] on his block. But there’s also this unfolding story so things never get boring.

Did the making of “The Lowdown” and “Rez Dogs” overlap?

No, but it was toward the end of “Rez Dogs” that I dusted a script off that was like 10 years old. It was a feature [film], but I thought I would love to do a crime show, so I just made it into an hourlong pilot, and it became “The Lowdown.”

Sterlin Harjo says his new series was originally a script for a feature film: “I thought I would love to do a crime show, so I just made it into an hour-long pilot, and it became ‘The Lowdown.’”

(Guerin Blask / For The Times)

Ethan Hawke starred in the last season of “Rez Dogs.” Is that how you two connected?

I had a mutual friend who introduced us because Ethan had written a graphic novel about the Apache Wars and Geronimo. It was originally a script that he couldn’t get made in Hollywood because it was told from the Native side of things. Out of frustration, he made it into a graphic novel. I read it and was interested in adapting it for a show. I met up with Ethan, and I pitched my idea of the adaptation and he loved it. We spoke the same language. So we started writing together and our friendship came out of that. And then “Rez Dogs” came out, and he wrote me to say that he really loved it. He said, “If you ever have anything for me …” Of course I’ll write something [for him]! So he became Elora’s dad.

“The Lowdown” was shot on location in Tulsa and you used much of the same crew from “Rez Dogs.” But I also hear your own family was involved, as well as some “Rez Dogs” alums.

The crew and I know how to work together at this point. It’s like a big family. And my [actual] family was there. My brother was doing locations. My kids came on set. We’re shooting on some of my land. My dad was hired to brush-hog it. My mom’s an extra. There’s a couple of “Rez Dogs” cameos. You’ll see Willie Jack [Paulina Alexis] in the opening. Graham Greene’s in it. But I don’t know how much I’m supposed to say yet. I better not say …

You started out as an indie filmmaker. Can you talk a little about that journey to series TV?

I’ve always felt like an outsider. I’m a small-town Native kid from rural Oklahoma. I never felt like I had a foot in this industry. I was an independent filmmaker forever. I sometimes felt like everything was against me, like there’s no money, and I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma, so it felt like the industry at large didn’t care about the work I was doing.

Before “Rez Dogs,” I never worked in TV and I never worked for anyone else doing films. I only had the education I got with the Sundance Directors Lab, which is the most freedom any filmmaker is ever going to have. Then I was lucky enough to make films that were so low-budget. It meant the stakes weren’t high because no one saw them. So if they hated them, I wasn’t destroyed.

Your films and previous series were rooted in Indigenous viewpoints and experiences. Those cultures have been so misrepresented across all aspects of American entertainment. What gave you the confidence to keep pitching those stories?

I attribute that to not having anything to lose. “Rez Dogs” came at this time when I thought I was going to have to move on. I was at the end of my career road, where I was about to start a nonprofit or find the next chapter of what to do. I had been the freelance filmmaker for a long time and it just got hard to pay bills. With “Rez Dogs,” it was like, I could try to play it safe right now or I could swing for the fences. I had seen opportunities come and go, but I have this shot and this one at-bat. I need to just go for it. Luckily, FX is a place that allowed me to do that. And I did it. Luckily, I’d been making independent films for years and figured out my voice, so it wasn’t hard to ground “Rez Dogs” in my voice.

“With ‘Rez Dogs,’ it was like, I could try to play it safe right now or I could swing for the fences,” Sterlin Harjo says. “I had seen opportunities come and go, but I have this shot and this one at-bat.”

(Guerin Blask / For The Times)

Were there outside influences that also helped you get there?

“Atlanta” and “Louie.” Those cracked my mind open to what TV could be and allowed me in. Because to tell an Indigenous story about a community, I had to go to different places. If I was just focused on the kids [in “Rez Dogs”], it would be one thing and that’s it. I needed to expand. And so [it was] taking some of what “Atlanta” did but having this relay, like passing the baton off to different segments of the [Indigenous] community. I was also inspired by “The Wire.”

And “Rez Dogs” was a story that I always wanted to tell. Taika [who is of Maori descent] and I would end up talking about how similar they were from both of our homes, and if you could just kind of capture what it felt like to hear your aunts and uncles telling stories and lying and exaggerating and talking about mythology and superstitions. If you could capture all that, as Indigenous people, that’s what we wanted and craved.

The key to that was making it about this community, but it was a bit of a Trojan horse. It’s about these teenagers that are dealing with life and that’s a subject that everyone knows. So you start with that, and then expand out once you have people on your side.

The motto you mentioned — “Nothing to lose” — can you still use it now that you’ve had some success, and if so, why does it still work for you?

I think it has to do with people close to me dying when I was young. It’s a big community, a big family, and I was always at a funeral. I’ve been a pallbearer like 15 times or something. It gave me the sense that you can’t be afraid to put stuff out there. I’ve always had a way of diving off a cliff. It’s like, if everything fails after this, I’m OK with it. If everything dries up, that’s cool. At least I gave it a shot. This is going to sound hippie-dippie, but I think the energy that it takes to dive off a cliff and just go for it is an act in itself that creates energy. Something good will come out of it. So as long as you’re moving forward, something comes out of it.

IT’S the showpiece beach resort at the heart of Kim Jong-un’s plans for a holiday empire – but the “North Korean Benidorm” hides a dark secret.

The Wonsan-Kalma resort reportedly got its nickname after dictator Kim sent a fact-finding mission to Spain’s Costa Blanca in 2017.

11

11

11

But unlike its Mediterranean rival, Wonsan-Kalma has a history filled with forced labour, human rights abuses – and poo.

The horrors began right at the start of the project, when the regime press-ganged teenage schoolkids into “shock brigades” of builders.

Pyongyang propaganda bragged that these youths were building the resort’s hotels at the rate of a storey per day in a December 2019 report.

But by then two deadlines to finish the job had already passed, and with a third looming, builders were made to work almost round the clock in icy temperatures.

Party chiefs mobilised workers “in the bitter cold of January, February, and March, allowing them to sleep for only three hours a day,” a source told the Daily NK newspaper.

And though the regime called the youths “volunteers”, really they had no real choice.

People are forced into “shock brigades” with the threat of arrest and detention in labour camps, according to a UN report about forced labour in North Korea.

Recruits get a monthly wage that is “only enough to buy two packs of cigarettes”, the report added, and are fed so little that malnutrition is widespread.

Workers at Wonsan lived off “foul-smelling seaweed soup, salted radishes and yellow corn rice,” according to Daily NK.

Female workers faced an added peril.

One woman quoted by the UN recalled how shock brigade chiefs “harassed” them and said “many women were sexually abused”.

North Korea expert Michael Madden described the backbreaking toil faced by “volunteers” at Wonsan.

He said: “Youth Shock Brigades would be involved in digging foundations, framing, painting, paving, and moving materials and supplies.

“Pay for brigade members is minimal.

“In the past, the brigade members were not provided adequate food supplies and stole from local populations.”

Today the resort welcomes Russian visitors and members of the North Korean elite.

But guests may be surprised to learn that they’re not the first to stay in the brand-new hotels.

When the third deadline for finishing the resort passed in April 2020, the site lay almost abandoned for months as Covid-19 spread around the world.

11

11

11

Soon reports emerged that homeless wanderers – known as kkotjebi in North Korea – had moved in to the skeletal hotels.

“The buildings are no different from toilets, with bowel movements left behind by the kkotjebi everywhere,” a source told Daily NK.

“Now they’re full of human waste and soot from fires.”

The same report also revealed that the resort’s planning chief and site manager had been sacked in 2019 amid mounting delays.

It’s a punishment with potentially fatal consequences.

Mr Madden, the founder of North Korea Leadership Watch, and a fellow of the Stimson Center in Washington DC, said nothing had been heard of either of them since.

If they were blamed for inefficiencies or incompetence, he said, they probably faced demotion, intensive indoctrination, and a manual labour assignment.

“On the other hand if there was malfeasance or some type of corruption, then both of these people have, at the least, faced a lengthy incarceration,” he continued.

“If these individuals had a habit of corrupt activities on Wonsan-Kalma and any previous projects, then one or both project managers faced the firing squad.”

11

11

Before it was a holiday destination, Wonsan was a missile launch site.
Indeed the rockets continued blasting off even as the hotels took shape.

And ultimately, that’s how money spent by tourists will be used.

Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, warned holidaymakers not to fund Kim’s “tools of death”.

He said: “The money coming from tourists, mostly Russians at the moment, will go to the areas that the regime regards as critical to its survival.

“These are: keeping the Kim family rich, and the key elites happy, as well as developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other tools of death.”

The North Korean tourism push, which seeks to raise foreign currency, has also seen the regime open the Masikryong Ski Resort, and Yangdok hot springs resort.

11

11

11

The search for Shannon Matthews, nine, became a major missing person police operation and, after several weeks, she was found at an address in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire

A man who investigated Shannon Matthews‘ disappearance has revealed the moment he knew the girl’s mum Karen was the person behind it all.

Richard Edwards, who was a local reporter at the time, appeared on This Morning yesterday to talk about his involvement in the case which saw a huge missing person police operation launched for the girl. She was found at her mum’s then-boyfriend Michael Donovan’s house in a plot to claim a £50,000 reward, and both Karen and Donovan were prosecuted and jailed.

The search lasted 24 days in February and March 2008, during which time people on the estate near Dewsbury, West Yorkshire eventually became suspicious of Karen. It dawned on Mr Edwards himself Karen could be responsible when a man approached him – as he worked late on the estate one evening for a local newspaper – and pointed at Karen’s house, insisting she had known along along where Shannon was.

READ MORE: This Morning host says ‘stop the show’ minutes in as viewers ‘switch off’READ MORE: How to watch new Shannon Matthews documentary 17 years on from fake kidnap scandal

Speaking to Emma Willis and Andi Peters on the ITV This Morning sofa yesterday, Mr Edwards said: “There was one particular night where to this day I’ve never known who this person was. It was a Sunday night, a few days before Karen was arrested…

“A car pulled up on the estate, I was working, it was late on the Sunday, it was dark and a guy got out and he said ‘Where’s that Richard Edwards from the Yorkshire Evening Post?’

“I thought I’ve done something to offend this fella, but I need to front up. I said ‘That’s me’. He came over, he was right at the end of Mooreside Road and he pointed towards the house, he went ‘She’s done it. She’s known where that little girl has been all along.’

“Then got into the car and drove off and I thought right… that was weird. That was on top of the other stuff I’d been hearing. And then three days later she was arrested.”

The mum would later be charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice. She was jailed for eight years after a jury found her guilty of those offences.

But Mr Edwards still to this day – 17 years on – does not know who the man who approached him was. The journalist continued: “If he’s watching this and wants to get in touch with me just to explain who he is and just clear up that tiny little outstanding part of the story. I would love to hear from him because he didn’t tell me who he was, but he was right. He was right.”

Donovan was also jailed for eight years after the trial at Leeds Crown Court, after which he was convicted of kidnapping and false imprisonment. Donovan died of cancer in hospital at the age of 54 last year.

People have been left in stitches of laughter after hearing about a woman’s story while holidaying in Ibiza – she thought she had hit the jackpot and met Wayne Lineker but the truth left her red-faced

A young woman on a girls’ holiday with her mate was absolutely buzzing after she believed she’d encountered her “hero”, Wayne Lineker. Gary Lineker ‘s brother can frequently be found chatting to punters at his cherished party destination, Ocean Beach in Ibiza – with countless visitors clamouring for snaps with his during their visit.

The Spanish beach club has enjoyed tremendous success since launching 13 years ago, and remains essential for Brits visiting the party isle. Celebrities including Ed Sheeran, Jason Derulo, Jack Grealish and Conor McGregor have been photographed at the San Antonio venue. One woman was thrilled after meeting who she believed was Wayne Lineker, who has remained single for seven years.

She became even more excited when he reportedly offered to buy her a drink. The party-goer was holidaying with a friend she’s called Faye, and the duo were staying at Ibiza Rocks. One day while at the poolside party hotel, the two women were approached by some “absolute sorts” they nicknamed “Ibiza Final Bosses”. The blokes invited them to Ocean Beach for the day, which they accepted.

She and her mate headed to the beach club with the group and claims she was “having the time of her life” with them, until something caught her attention. She revealed in a frank TikTok video : “Out the corner of my eye I could see Wayne Lineker. I know exactly who Wayne Lineker is, I know he is into brunettes.”

READ MORE: Cruise ship worker shares reality of life onboard and ‘common’ secret

She continued: “My mate Faye doesn’t know who he is. He approaches and asks ‘do you want a drink’. I respond ‘I’ve got my own drinks but sure I’d love you to get me a drink’. So we end up spending time with Wayne Lineker and his companion, let’s call him Barry for the story.”

Lacy explained she and her friend departed from the initial group they’d joined at the beach club, hoping to spend their day with ‘Wayne’ and his mate. She observed they were having “a great time”.

The pair were invited to an afterparty at the location where the two men were staying. Lacy revealed: “I’m like absolutely, I’m thinking there’s going to a party, this is going to be lit, me and Wayne are going to be a thing, I’m literally going to come back to Torquay engaged. I manifested the whole thing.”

However, she began feeling doubtful when they climbed into a vehicle to reach the party. “I thought we were going to get into a Range Rover, it wasn’t quite that,” she revealed.

Lacy explained she hadn’t realised how intoxicated they were until that point. She described how they exited the car and entered a hotel, despite anticipating a large villa gathering.

“It is a disappointment to say the least,” she remarked.

Please note the follow video contains strong language.

She continued: “So we’re all sat in this twin room with Wayne, Barry, my mate Faye and me. They’re like ‘do you want a drink’, I’m like ‘yeah sure’. Anyway we do the whole formal thing of asking each other’s names.”

Lacy revealed she jokingly asked ‘Wayne’ what his name was, completely convinced it was him, and was stunned when he replied saying ‘Tim’.

She explained: “I said you’re so funny. He goes, ‘what do you mean’. I go ‘you’re name’s not Tim’, he goes ‘yeah my name’s Tim’. So it’s at that moment I realise what I’ve done. This ain’t Wayne Lineker.”

She continued: “I realised I have royally f***ed up. I have brought us to the back end of Ibiza where I have never even visited with this guy Tim – and now come to think of it, he doesn’t even look anything like Wayne Lineker. I am that lit, I’m stuck in this crazy hotel room with my mate.”

She feigned illness so she and her pal could make their getaway.

But matters got worse when they couldn’t find a taxi for more than an hour.

Lacy continued: “I am stuck in a hotel room with f***ing Barry, Wayne, Faye, and me drinking the worst f***ing prosecco while all the Ibiza final bosses are at a party.”

Wayne Lineker, who also runs Linekers bars and Bam-Bu-Ku, spotted the post and replied in the comments.

Wayne quipped: “Who’s Barry? Must be Dean Gaffney.”

Lacy fired back: “No way has Wayne entered the chat. Deffo not as hot as Dean Gaffney, more like Barry from Eastenders. Don’t worry Wayne I would recognise you in a crowded room any day of the week…it was an off brand night.”

The video was a hit with viewers, with one quipping: “What in the Jet 2 Holidays is going on here.”

Another chimed in with: “Wayne Lineker from Temu,”. A third couldn’t contain their laughter, commenting: “I am crying,” while another person penned: “I have never laughed so much at 7am on a Sunday morning.”

Another fan added: “Haha brilliant. Knew that was coming. Sounds like something I’d do. At least you have a great story to tell.”

One viewer shared a personal anecdote, stating: “Wayne Lineker tried chatting me up in his bar in Tenerife 35 years ago! He’s spent his life trying to pull women. I think you can do better.”

It’s common for food served on flights to seem different and while some passengers enjoy it, others don’t. A well-known UK doctor has spoken about why he doesn’t eat plane food.

Air travel is the main way holiday-goers choose to visit exotic destinations, especially in summer, and regular flyers will be familiar with the food available on planes. Many airlines, such as easyJet, TUI and Jet2 provide a variety of snacks and drinks that passengers can buy on board and longer, international flights often include complimentary meals.

Some travellers look forward to their inflight meals whereas others prefer to bring their own food with them. Dr Rangan Chatterjee is thought to be one of the most influential medical doctors in the UK and is best known for his TV show Doctor in the House and for being the resident doctor on BBC Breakfast. He is also the author of the number one Sunday Times bestseller Make Change That Lasts.

The healthcare professional recently posted a video on TikTok featuring a clip from his Feel Better Live More podcast where he discussed the ‘scary truth’ about plane food with surgeon and wellness expert Dr Darshan Shah.

Dr Chatterjee recalled a time when he spoke to a cabin service director onboard a flight who allegedly said he always brings his own food on planes only because “the stuff that needs to be added to plane food so that you find it tasty at altitudes, if you knew you wouldn’t touch anything on here.”

Dr Shah also shared: “I noticed that if I eat the meal that they gave me in the flight, not only does my glucose shoot up but it would stay up for hours and I was like, ‘I’m going to fast on every plane trip now. It’s just not worth eating’.”

Plane food often has increased salt and seasoning to make up for the reduced ability to taste flavours when flying at high altitudes.

The magazine Prima reported that reduced air pressure and dry cabin air dry out our noses, which dulls our ability to taste.

It further revealed that chefs and scientists have also discovered that umami, a new flavour known as the ‘fifth taste’, enhances the taste of many foods when you’re flying.

This is especially abundant in food like tomatoes, mushrooms, and spinach.

Conde Nast Traveller spoke to Ellie Birch, senior nutritionist at Holland & Barrett about the food served on planes.

She told the publication : “Food on planes also typically tends to be ultra-processed and low in nutritional value. The meals tend to be lower in fiber and higher in sugar, salt, and preservatives, which can cause digestive issues, too.”

In his TikTok post, Dr Chatterjee remarked that the conversation he had with the cabin service director was “quite interesting.”

He added: “I already wasn’t eating plane food anyway, but that made me even more convinced.”

Dr Shah responded: “Oh that makes total sense because it just feels like the food has a tremendous amount of additives to it.”

The TV doctor’s TikTok clip has garnered 326,800 views, more than 9,300 likes and almost 200 comments, at the time of writing.

One user agreed: “He’s right, I used to work for an aviation food manufacturer and they have labs to make sure it tastes right because our tastebuds change at that altitude.”

Another added: “I’m always bloated on flights after a meal and I don’t normally get bloated.”

However, some viewers weren’t as concerned about the food on planes as a third said: “Depends on how often you fly. It makes perfect sense for a steward to avoid it.”

A fourth chimed in: “Stuff they add to our everyday food, if we knew we wouldn’t eat anything.”

OK, I’ll say it. I’m sick of superheroes. I blame the Marvel Cinematic Universe (36 movies and counting over 17 years) and the DC Extended Universe (43 movies and counting, mostly since the late 1970s). Maybe Earth’s not big enough for two universes. They’re running pretty thin these days, down to rebooting reboots, making sequels for prequels and squeezing every ounce from the intellectual property tube to fill out streaming platform minutes.

But there’s always Superman. The Krypton-born alien, orphaned, sent off into space for survival and then raised by adoptive parents in Kansas. He’s now been with American pop culture for 10 decades (eight in film). Despite an outfit modeled after a circus strongman, he’s become a durable, transcendent symbol of the ultimate immigrant and somehow a simultaneous embodiment of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”

Superman’s the classic American good guy, and so this weekend’s opening of the new “Superman” with David Corenswet is a great time to think about the real good guys and gals in American life — that is, if you can find any. Where are all the good guys and gals in America? What qualifies someone for the title these days?

The idea has definitely shifted. It’s as if by sheer screen volume the fake superheroes overwhelmed the public consciousness. Superheroes are dialed up so high we can’t hear what real heroes sound like anymore. A 2008 poll in Britain found almost a quarter thought Winston Churchill was fake, while a majority of Britons believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

We’ve become confused: We prefer to watch fake heroes on screen rather than expect real ones to emerge in life. And so the fake ones become the only kind of hero we recognize.

The historian Daniel Boorstin described this transition from heroism to fame in his 1961 book “The Image.” He noted that heroes in American history were typically known for great public contribution through immense difficulty and danger. It didn’t matter much what they looked like because their deeds had saved lives and mattered to so many.

But pictures and movies changed everything in the 20th century. Heroes became celebrities. We traded away enduring contributions to the public good in exchange for flimsy, flashy fame that works for a paycheck. Value over values; money over all.

This isn’t hard to see. Look at how college sports has been conquered by contracts and name-image-likeness deals. How law firms kowtowed to an administration making unprecedented demands. How media heavyweights keep bending knees to the same. And let’s not get started with social media “influencers” except to say that doing the right and honest thing has been swept aside by the twin tsunamis of popularity and the Almighty Buck.

Where’s our real truth, our real justice, our real American way?

Not in Congress. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a perfect example. It might take a Mt. Rushmore makeover to honor the profound contributions to cowardice in the votes surrounding this act. Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) couldn’t vote fast enough to add trillions to the national debt despite arguing, less than a year ago, that Congress is “turning a blind eye to this $35 trillion in debt,” that it’s “unsustainable” and that “we have to get our fiscal house in order, and we have to do this for our children and our grandchildren.”

Or Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), long-time fiscal hawk on the debt, who repeatedly railed against the Big Beautiful Bill’s deficit spending in the final stretch. And then he voted for it.

Or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), known for saying “we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid” because “slashing health insurance for the working poor” would be “both morally and politically suicidal.” That was in May. But come July, Hawley voted to cut Medicaid.

The final vote came down to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). In a mid-June town hall, she said, “I have made clear very early on that we cannot move forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicaid.” And yet, despite the fact that nearly 40,000 Alaskans (more than 5% of the state’s population) will likely lose their healthcare coverage as a direct result of the bill, Murkowski caved.

Sarah Longwell, founder and publisher of the Bulwark, spared nothing in her criticism of Murkowski. She wrote that this one action “defines our pathetic political moment,” embodying:

“Selfishness: I’m taking care of me and mine, the rest of you can pound sand;

Lack of accountability: I know the bill is bad, hopefully someone else will fix it;

Cowardice: I’m scared of Trump and his voters and need to go-along to get along with my GOP colleagues;

Moral rot: I know the difference between right and wrong, and actively chose wrong.”

Not exactly Superman. Sounds more like Lex Luthor at his most self-serving and callous.

We don’t need someone faster than a speeding bullet in the House. We don’t need senators leaping tall buildings in a single bound. We don’t need Superman.

But we do need our Clark Kents and Lois Lanes to step up. We do need our real heroes right now. Maybe Crank or Roy or Hawley or Murkowski will see the movie this weekend. Maybe they’ll find some courage for the next vote.

Maybe.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

It’s the 249th birthday of the United States. And as Americans begin to prepare for our nation’s grand semiquincentennial celebration next year, it is worth reengaging with the document whose enactment marks our national birthday: the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration is sometimes championed by right-libertarians and left-liberals alike as a paean to individualism and a refutation of communitarianism of any kind. As one X user put it on Thursday: “The 4th of July represents the triumph of American individualism over the tribalistic collectivism of Europe.”

But this is anything but the case.

We will turn to lead draftsman Thomas Jefferson’s famous words about “self-evident” truths in a moment. But first consider the majority of the text of the declaration: a stirring enumeration of specific grievances by the American colonists against the British crown. In the declaration’s own words: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

One might read these words in a vacuum and conclude that the declaration indeed commenced a revolution in the true sense of the term: a seismic act of rebellion, however noble or righteous, to overthrow the established political order. And true enough, that may well have been the subjective intention of Jefferson, a political liberal and devotee of the European Enlightenment.

But the declaration also attracted many other signers. And some of those signers, such as the more conservative John Adams, took a more favorable view of the incipient America’s inherited traditions and customs. These men thought that King George III had vitiated their rights as Englishmen under the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights that passed Parliament the following year.

It is for this reason that Edmund Burke, the famed conservative British statesman best known for his strident opposition to the French Revolution, was known to be sympathetic to the colonists’ cause. As my Edmund Burke Foundation colleague Ofir Haivry argued in a 2020 American Affairs essay, it is likely that these more conservative declaration signers, such as Adams, shared Burke’s own view that “the Americans had an established national character and political culture”; and “the Americans in 1776 rebelled in an attempt to defend and restore these traditions.”

The American founding is complex; the founders themselves were intellectually heterodox. But suffice it to say the founding was not a simplistic renouncement of the “tribalistic collectivism” of Britain. There is of course some truth to those who would emphasize the revolutionary nature of the minutemen and soldiers of George Washington’s Continental Army. But a more historically sound overall conception is that 1776 commenced a process to restore and improve upon the colonists’ inherited political order. The final result was the U.S. Constitution of 1787.

Let’s next consider the most famous line of the declaration: the proclamation that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We ought to take this claim at face value: Many of the declaration’s signers did hold such genuine, moral human equality to be self-evident.

But is such a claim self-evident to everyone — at all times, in all places and within all cultures?

The obvious answer is that it is not. Genuine, moral human equality is certainly not self-evident to Taliban-supporting Islamic extremist goat herders in Afghanistan. It has not been self-evident to any number of sub-Saharan African warlords of recent decades. Nor is it self-evident to the atheists of the Chinese Communist Party politburo, who brutally oppress non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities such as the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang.

Rather, the only reason that Jefferson — and Locke in England a century prior — could confidently assert such moral “self-evidence” is because they were living and thinking within a certain overarching milieu. And that milieu is Western civilization’s biblical inheritance — and, specifically, the world-transforming claim in Genesis 1:27, toward the very beginning of the Bible, that “God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him.”

It is very difficult — perhaps impossible — to see how the declaration of 1776, the 14th Amendment of 1868, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other American moral ode to or legal codification of equality, would have been possible absent the strong biblical undergird that has characterized our nation since the colonial era.

Political and biblical inheritance are thus far more responsible for the modern-day United States than revolution, liberal rationalism or hyper-individualism.

Adams famously said that Independence Day “ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” Indeed, each year we should all celebrate this great nation we are blessed to call home. But let’s also not mistake what it is we are actually celebrating.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer