turn

Del Monte’s losses have piled up as consumers choose healthier or cheaper alternatives.

Del Monte Foods, the 139-year-old company best known for its canned fruits and vegetables, is filing for bankruptcy protection as consumers in the United States increasingly bypass its products for healthier or cheaper options.

Del Monte announced the bankruptcy filing late Tuesday.

Del Monte, which also owns the Contadina tomato brand, College Inn and Kitchen Basics broth brands and the Joyba bubble tea brand, has secured $912.5m in debtor-in-possession financing that will allow it to operate normally as the sale progresses.

The Walnut Creek, California-based brand has assets and liabilities ranging from $1bn to $10bn, according to a filing in a New Jersey bankruptcy court.

“After a thorough evaluation of all available options, we determined a court-supervised sale process is the most effective way to accelerate our turnaround and create a stronger and enduring Del Monte Foods,” CEO Greg Longstreet said in a statement.

The company has seen sales growth of Joyba and broth in the 2024 fiscal year, but not enough to offset weaker sales of Del Monte’s signature canned products.

“Consumer preferences have shifted away from preservative-laden canned food in favour of healthier alternatives,” Sarah Foss, global head of legal and restructuring at Debtwire, a financial consultancy, told the news agency The Associated Press.

Grocery inflation also caused consumers to seek out cheaper store brands. Last month, the consumer price index report showed a 0.3 percent increase in the price of food and 2.2 percent compared with this time last year.

Another blow is expected from US President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariff on imported steel. This went into effect in June and will also push up the price that Del Monte and others pay for cans.

Del Monte Foods, which is owned by Singapore’s Del Monte Pacific, was also hit with a lawsuit last year by a group of lenders that objected to the company’s debt restructuring plan. The case was settled in May with a loan that increased Del Monte’s interest expenses by $4m annually, according to a company statement.

Del Monte’s stock is about even from the market open, and it is up 4.62 percent over the last five days.

The fallout from last night’s heart rate challenge continued on tonight’s Love Island – but one pair seemed to be growing closer as Ben and Alima shared a shock kiss

Fans have been left stunned after Alima and Ben shared a passionate kiss on Love Island. Last night, fans watched on as the Islanders took part in the iconic heart rate challenge, although some were more racy than others.

Viewers watched on in shock as Helena whispered “I can’t wait to f***k you” in Harry’s ear – and it was clear the feelings were reciprocated.

During the challenge, Ben was left in disbelief by Alima’s racy performance, and it was no surprise that his heart rate rose the most by her. However, the feelings weren’t reciprocated on the night, as Alima’s heart rate was raised the most by Harrison.

Despite this, Alima’s heart rate seemed to be raised by Ben after the challenge, as the two got surprisingly close to each other. Speaking about the moment, Ben said: “You’ve got it. The face card’s a joke! Look at you pulling me closer.”

“I’m just very touchy, Alima responded as she held onto Ben’s hand. In a shock move, the pair gazed into each other’s eyes as they shared a passionate kiss.

Love Island fans couldn’t believe their eyes when the moment happened, as they took to X, formerly known as Twitter to share their disbelief. “BEN AND ALIMA?????” exclaimed one, as another said: “Alima and Ben was not on my 2025 bingo card.”

“I’ve just opened ITV to see Alima kissing Ben of allllllll people? BFFR,” penned a third shocked fan, while another said: “WHY ARE BEN AND ALIMA KISSING!!”

It’s unclear whether the kiss will lead to anything more, as Alima opened up to the girls in the dressing room after the shocking move. “The chat was good, but it was very flirty and just banter. I need to find out if there’s substance,” she said.

Elsewhere tonight, Shakira was made aware of what was going on behind her back as the gossip spread throughout the villa. Obviously, she was less than impressed and proceeded to call things off with Harry. She was left feeling embarrassed, explaining that she felt like the entertainment of the villa with Harry’s behaviour.

It was the second time in two days she’d been left upset by his actions. Just the day before, Harry left her in tears when he decided to snog his ex Helena in the Snog, Marry, Pie challenge.

Are Shakira and Harry really over for good? And will Harry and Helena continue with their ‘unfinished business’?

Love Island continues tonight at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX.

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

Following the success of Louis Theroux’s series called Boybands Forever, the journalist is planning a girl group version, but one iconic group has reportedly shunned his approach

Louis Theroux is used to interviewing the best in the business. However, one band has reportedly shunned his advances to tell their story.

The popular journalist is creating a new bombshell BBC documentary on girlbands following on from last year’s successful production of Boybands Forever. It’s thought Louis had seen the iconic band as being instrumental in any production.

However, a TV insider has claimed that the quintet – made up of Victoria Beckham, Emma Bunton, Melanie C, Melanie Brown MBE and Geri Horner – aren’t prepared to bare all just yet.

While last year’s boyband version saw Robbie Williams open up on his turbulent time in Take That, the source says the Girl Power group aren’t looking to follow suit.

Talking to the Sun, a source said: “The difference is that the Spice Girls are fast approaching 30 years since the release of their debut single Wannabe and have a string of projects in the pipeline.

“Many of the issues that Robbie brought up on Boybands Forever were wholly justifiable, and most viewers sympathised with his situation when he was in Take That.

“But none of the Spice Girls want to do the same, and they feel it wouldn’t be fair on their loyal fans to spoil the magic of Girl Power so close to their anniversary year. They want 2026 to be a moment when they celebrate the group’s achievements.”

While the Spice Girls are reportedly steering clear of the offering, other groups from the era are expected to feature. With it thought chats will be conducted face to face, members of groups such as Eternal, Atomic Kitten, Girls Aloud, Sugababes and All Saints are rumoured to be taking part.

Boybands Forever, which was released at the back end of last year, was a series that focused on boybands of the 90s and early 2000s. Among those who featured, as well as Robbie Williams, was Simon Cowell.

Prior to its release, Louis said of the series: “It involves some of the icons of modern British pop – and we see them through their highs and lows.” He added: “It’s how they came together, the experience of sudden fame, the opportunity and temptations that came their way, conflicts within the groups, between the groups, and between the boys and their managers.

“It’s a gripping fable about getting everything you dreamed of, and it not being what you imagined, centred on a generation of young men, and their managers, who were wildly successful and also immensely vulnerable, having the times of their lives and also in some cases cracking up.”

READ MORE: FatFace’s ‘cool’ summer dress that ‘doesn’t crease’ and will ‘pack well for holidays’

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

Cape Town, South Africa – Five months ago, with a single social media post, United States President Donald Trump put half a million people in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at risk when he announced the closure of USAID – the single biggest aid donor in the country.

A few days ago in Washington, DC, the same administration claimed credit for extricating the Congolese people from a decades-long conflict often described as the deadliest since World War II. This year alone, thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.

While the White House may be celebrating its diplomatic triumph in brokering a peace deal between tense neighbours DRC and Rwanda, for sceptical observers and people caught up in conflict and deprivation in eastern DRC, the mood is bound to be far more muted, experts say.

“I think a lot of ordinary citizens are hardly moved by the deal and many will wait to see if there are any positives to come out of it,” said Michael Odhiambo, a peace expert for Eirene International in Uvira in eastern DRC, where 250,000 displaced people lost access to water due to Trump’s aid cutbacks.

Odhiambo suggests that for Congolese living in towns controlled by armed groups – like the mineral-rich area of Rubaya, held by M23 rebels – US involvement in the war may cause anxiety, rather than relief.

“There is fear that American peace may be enforced violently as we have seen in Iran. Many citizens simply want peace and even though [this is] dressed up as a peace agreement, there is fear it may lead to future violence that could be justified by America protecting its business interests.”

The agreement, signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers in Washington on Friday, is an attempt to staunch the bleeding in a conflict that has raged in one form or another since the 1990s.

At the signing, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called it a “turning point”, while his Congolese counterpart, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, said the moment had “been long in coming”.

“It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of – safety, dignity and a sense of future,” Wagner said.

Trump has meanwhile said he deserves to be lauded for bringing the parties together, even suggesting that he deserves a Nobel prize for his efforts.

While the deal does aim to quell decades of brutal conflict, observers point to concerns with the fine print: That it was also brokered after Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi said in March that he was willing to partner with the US on a minerals-for-security deal.

Experts say US companies hope to gain access to minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium that they desperately need to meet the demand for technology and beat China in the race for Africa’s natural resources.

But this has raised fears among critics that the US’s main interest in the agreement is to further foreign extraction of eastern DRC’s rare earth minerals, which could lead to a replay of the violence seen in past decades, instead of a de-escalation.

M23 and FDLR: Will armed groups fall in line?

The main terms of the peace deal – which is also supported by Qatar – require Kinshasa and Kigali to establish a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Additionally, the DRC should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), after which Rwanda will lift its “defensive measures” inside the DRC.

According to the United Nations and other international rights groups, there are about 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan troops on the ground in eastern DRC, as Kigali actively backs M23 rebels who have seized key cities in the region this year. Rwanda has repeatedly denied these claims.

M23 is central to the current conflict in eastern DRC. The rebel group, which first took up arms in 2012, was temporarily defeated in 2013 before it reemerged in 2022. This year, it made significant gains, seizing control of the capitals of both North Kivu and South Kivu provinces in January and February.

Although separate Qatar-led mediation efforts are under way regarding the conflict with M23, the rebel group is not part of this agreement signed last week.

“This deal does not concern M23. M23 is a Congolese issue that is going to be discussed in Doha, Qatar. This is a deal between Rwanda and DRC,” Gatete Nyiringabo Ruhumuliza, a Rwandan political commentator, told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story, explaining that the priority for Kigali is the neutralisation of the FDLR – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

“Rwanda has its own defensive mechanisms [in DRC] that have nothing to do with M23,” Ruhumuliza said, adding that Kigali will remove these mechanisms only once the FDLR is dealt with.

But the omission of M23 from the US-brokered process points to one of the potential cracks in the deal, experts say.

“The impact of the agreement may be more severe on the FDLR as it explicitly requires that it ceases to exist,” said Eirene International’s Odhiambo. “The M23, however, is in a stronger position given the leverage they have from controlling Goma and Bukavu and the income they are generating in the process.”

The US-brokered process requires the countries to support ongoing efforts by Qatar to mediate peace between the DRC and M23. But by including this, the deal also “seems to temper its expectations regarding the M23″, Odhiambo argues.

Additionally, “M23 have the capacity to continue to cause mayhem even if Rwanda decided to act against it,” he said. “Therefore, I think the agreement will not in itself have a major impact on the M23.”

In terms of the current deal’s effect on the two countries, both risk being exposed for their role in the conflict, he added.

“I think that if Rwanda manages to prevail on the M23 as anticipated by the deal, it may prove the long-suspected proxy relationship between them.”

For DRC, he said Kinshasa executing the terms of the agreement will not augur well for the FDLR, but suggested calls to neutralise them may be a tall order.

“If [Kinshasa] manage to do it, then they remove Rwanda’s justification for its activities in the DRC. But to do so may be a big ask given the capacity of the FARDC [DRC military], and failure to do so will feed into the narrative of a dysfunctional and incapable state. Therefore, I think the DRC has more at stake than Rwanda.”

On the other hand, Tshisekedi’s government could score political points, according to Jakob Kerstan, DRC country director for the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation (KAS), which promotes democracy and the rule of law.

“The sentiment … of the Congolese population, it’s very much like the conflict has been left behind: No one really cares in the world; the Congo is only being exploited, and so on. And the fact that there is now a global power caring about the DRC … I think this is a gain,” he said.

He feels there is also less pressure on Kinshasa’s government today than earlier this year when M23 was first making its rapid advance. “There are no protests any more. Of course, people are angry about the situation [in the east], but they kind of accept [it]. And they know that militarily they won’t be able to win it. The Kinshasa government, they know it as well.”

‘Peace for exploitation’?

Although Kinshasa appears to have readily offered the US access to the country’s critical minerals in exchange for security, many observers on the continent find such a deal concerning.

Congolese analyst Kambale Musavuli told Africa Now Radio that reports of the possible allocation of billions of dollars worth of minerals to the US, was the “Berlin Conference 2.0″, referring to the 19th-century meeting during which European powers divided up Africa. Musavuli also bemoaned the lack of accountability for human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, Congolese Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege called the agreement a “scandalous surrender of sovereignty” that validated foreign occupation, exploitation, and decades of impunity.

An unsettling undertone of the deal is “the spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph”, said political commentator Lindani Zungu, writing in an op-ed for Al Jazeera. “This emerging ‘peace for exploitation’ bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order.”

Meanwhile, for others, the US may be the ones who end up with a raw deal.

KAS’s Kerstan believes Trump’s people may have underestimated the complexities of doing business in the DRC – which has scared off many foreign companies in the past.

Even those who welcome this avenue towards peace acknowledge that the situation remains fragile.

Alexandria Maloney, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s US-based Africa Center, praised the Trump deal for combining diplomacy, development and strategic resource management. However, she warned against extraction without investment in infrastructure, skills and environmental safeguards. “Fragile governance structures in eastern DRC, particularly weak institutional capacity and fragmented local authority, could undercut enforcement or public trust,” Maloney told the think tank’s website.

Furthermore, China’s “entrenched footprint in the DRC’s mining sector may complicate implementation and heighten geopolitical tensions”, she added.

For analysts, the most optimistic assessments about the US’s role in this process appear to say: Thank goodness the Americans stepped in; while the least optimistic say: Are they in over their heads?

Overall, this Congo peace agreement seems to have few supporters outside multilateral diplomatic fora such as the UN and the African Union.

For many, the biggest caution is the exclusion of Congolese people and civil society organisations – which is where previous peace efforts have also failed.

“I have no hopes at all [in this deal],” said Vava Tampa, the founder of grassroots Congolese antiwar charity Save the Congo. “There isn’t much difference between this deal and the dozens of other deals that have been made in the past,” he told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story.

“This deal does two things really: It denies Congolese people – Congolese victims and survivors – justice; and simultaneously it also fuels impunity,” he said, calling instead for an international criminal tribunal for Congo and for perpetrators of violence in both Kigali and Kinshasa to be held accountable.

“Peace begins with justice,” Tampa said. “You cannot have peace or stability without justice.”

On a Tuesday morning, Kaneng Fom’s* mind told her she was going to die.

The day had begun normally: Kaneng took a short walk down her estate street with her brother, watched her favourite anime, and hoped for an update to the show, before finally getting in the car. Her mother was waiting at the steering wheel to drive her down the road in the Gwarimpa area of Abuja, North Central Nigeria, to get a loaf of bread. The ride was usually smooth for Kaneng, but not that day; the crushing feeling of death and panic consumed her.

That feeling unsettled her mind, tightened her chest, and overwhelmed her breath. Her mother was talking to her in the car, but Kaneng’s anxiety prevented her from truly hearing. She knew how best to describe what was happening; she had learned this phrase online when trying to understand the strange anxiety that randomly overpowers her: a panic attack.

Her mother, however, seeing this for the first time, has different verbiage to handle the condition.

“Jesus!” she yelled.

“She was screaming, ‘Jesus, Jesus,’ until I eventually calmed myself down,” Kaneng recounts. “After she asked me a few questions, she said that I should pray more and if I prayed more or invited the Holy Spirit to go about my day, I would have fewer panic attacks.”

Nigeria is a religious country. About 99.4 per cent of the country’s population is affiliated with a major religion, according to the World Factbook. For those deeply connected to its culture and way of life, like Kaneng’s mother, religion is viewed as a solution to nearly every problem, including mental health challenges.

But while religion offers a source of strength, its dominance also reflects a deeper issue: mental health care in Nigeria is expensive, under-resourced, and often out of reach. As therapy costs rise and stigma remains high, for many Nigerians, then, the default response to psychological distress isn’t clinical but spiritual.

Research by the West African Academy of Public Health shows that many Nigerians like Kaneng are first and solely pushed to seek spiritual sustenance when they face a mental health challenge. 

‘Why worry when you can pray?’

Such was the case for 22-year-old Tolu*, a member of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), who identifies with several symptoms from autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and trauma from sexual assault.

“I come from a very Catholic family, so obviously I believed the church should be my first option,” he said. “I was at a church retreat, and my head just wasn’t clear, so I went to the priest for guidance. I was like (to the priest) ‘I don’t think I’m okay mentally’ and all he told me to do was pray. I didn’t ask him for any particular help, but he didn’t provide any particular help either. ”

A study by researchers at the Department of Religion and Cultural Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka in the country’s South East, revealed that some Nigerian religious bodies have positioned themselves as entities capable of curing any struggle, mental illness included. The study explains that this posture, in some cases, allows religious leaders to extort Nigerians who come to them for help. 

Despite estimates from the African Polling Institute suggesting that 20 to 30 per cent of Nigerians may have mental illness, there is a significant lack of care and attention dedicated to addressing their needs. The Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria (APN) also estimates that only about 300 psychiatrists are tending to mentally ill Nigerians, with only about 4.72 per cent of Nigeria’s total health budget allotted to mental health care. For many, accessing a psychologist can be a painful struggle, and when they do get access, the psychologists often lack proper resources.

In the context of widespread need and inadequate support, spiritual solutions become the more accessible, familiar, and often the only option available.

This “faith-centred healing” approach is echoed by popular religious leaders like Jerry Eze, an evangelist and founder of an Abuja-based Pentecostal ministry, Streams of Joy, who conducts services where the “spirit” of depression or anxiety is cast away on the authority of Jesus. 

During a sermon to thousands of congregation members on June 22, Pastor Jerry described anxiety as something people position themselves in. 

“If I position in fear, my seed (blessings) will be eaten. If I position myself in anxiety, then my seed (blessings) will be eaten,” he claimed during the sermon, giving many a sense of power over something they may feel helpless about. To fix this issue, he insisted his devoted listeners command the spirit of fear away, saying, “It does not matter whether there is change (in your fears) or not, keep commanding!”

When Ruth Anya*, a Streams of Joy member, was asked whether Pastor Jerry encouraged the congregation to seek professional mental health care, she replied, “He doesn’t discourage us, and has even encouraged people to speak to loved ones if they are struggling. But we all know we are at Streams of Joy for our miracles.”

People of other faiths face similar situations, where spiritual explanations are often prioritised before other possibilities are explored. In May, Suhayla Yusuf*, a young Muslim woman, told HumAngle that she had turned to an Islamic platform to share her distress over the intrusive thoughts associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but was simply told the thoughts were from the devil, with no further support offered. OCD has different subtypes, and in Islamic discourse, Suhalya’s experience aligns with what is commonly referred to as waswas, a term that translates to “whisperings of the devil.”

The cost of mental wellness

In 2024, Nigeria’s minimum wage was increased to ₦70,000. While this policy has been slow to implement, the price of therapy and the general cost of living in the country have continued to skyrocket beyond what the average Nigerian makes monthly.

To better understand the cost limitation to seeking mental health support, HumAngle researched and found that a leading psychiatry resource in Nigeria offers therapy sessions that range in price from ₦15,000 to ₦155,000. The cost depends on factors such as your location, the therapist’s qualifications, the type of therapy provided, and whether the session is conducted online or in person. Regardless of the circumstances, many Nigerians may find this cost of a single therapy session unaffordable.

“Therapy is largely inaccessible to the average Nigerian. The cost of treatment, especially private services, remains out of reach for most,” Okwuchukwu Mary-Ann, a clinical psychologist, told HumAngle. 

Her reasoning is backed by data: the World Bank estimates Nigeria’s rural poverty rate is 75.5 per cent. The World Health Organisation has reported that those living in poverty are the most likely to experience mental health issues. Therefore, a ₦15,000 session is far too expensive for the majority of Nigerians who need mental health support.

“Finances pose a big problem for me,” Kaneng noted. “I’ve always been supportive of therapy, but I’ve never been able to afford to go. I would ask my parents, but as I told you, my mother thinks I need to pray more, and my father, our breadwinner, agrees.” When asked if they tried to help her beyond this advice, Kaneng said, ‘My mother prayed whenever I brought it up. That was it.’”

Tolu also faces the same challenge, explaining, “I diagnosed myself through a test sent to me by a friend. A big hindrance towards me getting a formal diagnosis is money.”

Morayo Adesina*, a student at the Pan-Atlantic University in Lagos, South West Nigeria, who tried therapy in 2022, told HumAngle it wasn’t a favourable experience. “It wasn’t easy to find a therapist in Nigeria,” she claimed. “As a student, my only options were the school therapist who may potentially expose my secrets to school authorities, or a therapist gotten through my mother who may potentially expose certain aspects of my worldview to her that I didn’t want her to know about.”

Despite her reservations, Morayo had no choice but to trust her mother’s judgment. This path led her to two therapists, the second of whom she stayed with for some time.

“The second therapist I saw cost around ₦50,000 for the first session, and ₦30,000 for subsequent sessions. That was three years ago, though, and the price today should be over ₦70,000,” she said. 

When asked why she stopped, Morayo responded, “I did about four to five sessions before I started to feel like I was wasting my mum’s money.” 

With a few sessions and over ₦100,000 spent on therapy, Morayo was able to reap some benefits from her sessions with the therapist, who eventually gave her a diagnosis for the persistent pessimism and gloominess she has carried as long as she can remember. 

The verdict was depression, anxiety, and, most importantly, a way for Morayo to feel more at ease with herself; “this diagnosis made me feel more normal because it felt like I could at least tie what was wrong with me to something outside of the feeling that I was probably irredeemably broken.”

However, Morayo doesn’t think the sessions were enough, telling HumAngle that the cost and number of therapy sessions necessary to fix what she thinks is wrong with her come at an expensive price. The American Psychological Association has shown that 15 to 20 therapy sessions are essential to heal 50 per cent of people with mental illness, meaning Morayo’s five sessions only scratched the surface. When people like her, a middle-class student, can’t afford to pay for therapy sessions, the chances of the majority lower class seem far less likely. 

Rashid Usman*, an Arabic and Islamic teacher, agrees that the cost of therapy is too high, but believes surrendering oneself to Allah is the perfect way to avoid mental illnesses. “Mental illness is a condition that affects your thoughts, behaviours and emotions when you are too worried rather than allowing your creator to control your affairs,” he argued, noting that instead of spending money on therapy, it is much cheaper to position God at the heart of your problems. 

“People should be taught how to handle and manage anything that could lead to this problem in the way of God, at the worship centre,” he added. Rashid’s answer explains the reason some look to divinity rather than therapy.

Between stigma and possession

The cost of therapy is a significant barrier for many individuals, but the stigma associated with mental illness also presents a considerable obstacle. When Kaneng was asked about the difficulties of managing a mental illness in Nigeria, she sighed and responded, “It’s truly challenging, and it becomes even more difficult when I can’t express my feelings to my parents or convey my desire to seek therapy. I often feel like an outsider.”

Tolu also experienced the same thing: “It is challenging. You go through things people do not understand, and sometimes you want to explain, but you just dismiss the idea because they will most likely misunderstand your situation.”

Nigerian society has taught people like Tolu and Kaneng that it is better to be silent, whispering the particulars of their mental stress only to God. 

Rashid puts it plainly when asked if he thinks mental illness has a spiritual cause, stating, “Yes, spiritual attack from Jin [demon] can alter mental stability.”

Religious leaders from different faiths preach messages that align with his views. In 2022, Adeola Akinniyi, a pastor at Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, published a sermon titled “The Enemy Called Depression,” in which he described mental illness as a spiritual attack.

“The enemy is using the weapon of depression against believers in the church, manipulating sisters, brothers and everyone. That you have money does not stop the enemy from attacking you with the weapon of depression,” he told his congregants.

Faith and therapy 

In the ongoing conversation about the role of religion in mental health, a question arises: Can communion with God truly lead to complete healing from mental struggles? While Kaneng leans toward a hopeful affirmation, her response reveals a more complex truth.

“I’m not irreligious,” she cuts in quickly. “And I do feel some relief when I pray, but never in the middle of a [panic] attack, and they always come back.  I’ve begun to believe that praying or fasting can’t fix certain things, but they provide relief.”

Mary-Ann highlights the risks of relying solely on religious intervention for mental health issues. “This mindset of only seeking religious help can delay the pursuit of additional support, which may worsen symptoms or lead to chronic problems,” she noted.

Several other medical sources warn that unchecked mental illness can become permanent over time, an issue Kaneng thinks befell her.

“My panic attacks are less intense now that I’ve done research into what they are and I try to manage them,” she said. “But over the last two years, they have become more frequent, and I consider them a part of my daily life.”

There are religious leaders who understand the place of mental healthcare, however. 

Femi Ogunleye*, a youth pastor at the Cathedral Church of Advent in Abuja, believes mental health care is not restricted by God, explaining, “Christianity only discourages sin. Wanting help healthily isn’t a sin.”  

He proposes this dual style of healing: “There are medicines that can help (mental health care), you know, and depending on the type [of medicine]. Some can be resolved by going back to God in prayer and reading the word of God, but there are some that you need mental health care. So the church should promote going to mental health facilities when you have such challenges.”

He is not alone in believing that faith and therapy can coexist. Other Nigerian religious leaders, such as the well-known Apostle Femi Lazarus, have spoken extensively on the subject. In a sermon titled “Issues of Mental Health Need to be Addressed in The Body of Christ”, Lazarus affirms his belief that Christians and Nigerians need to pay better attention to mental health problems, saying, “Many people have mental health issues, and we need to first take them for therapy.” 

In Nigeria’s South South region, a group of Catholic nuns is providing free mental health services to women at risk of homelessness in Uyo and surrounding areas.

Additionally, mental health advocates like Mariam Adetona have found ways to properly combine faith with mental health care. On a muslim-advocacy blog, “Reviving Sisterhood”, Mariam spoke about reaching people who need mental health help, saying, “I have noticed many do not think therapy is necessary or are sceptical about its efficiency or effectiveness. In cases like this, I use my own experience with therapy to persuade them, as well as others’ experiences.”

Still, until therapy becomes truly affordable and stigma fades, many Nigerians will continue to find themselves caught between their faith and their pain, turning first to prayer, even when what they need most is professional care.

Names marked with * have been changed to protect identities.

As someone who has permanent ringing in the ears (tinnitus) as a result of hearing damage from concerts, I must take exception to how loud the music is played at sporting events these days. Despite quotes from Dodger players and executives stating how “great” the loudness at Dodger Stadium is, they are putting the paying customers and employees at risk for hearing loss with the excessive volume. Entertaining the fans is one thing, assaulting the delicate instrument that is our ears is quite another. I’m sure they could turn it down to safer decibel levels and everyone will still have a good time.

Mark Furcick
San Pedro

Dodger Stadium hosts a Military Appreciation Night, a Salvadoran Heritage Night, and a Guatemalan Heritage Night. But we will never see an Autism Spectrum Night. The ear-shattering sound system would cause fans to run from the stadium screaming in pain and terror.

I suffer from a condition called hyperacusis, where loud noises can cause ear pain lasting for days or even weeks. It’s rare in the general population, but more common among autistic people. I love baseball, and used to love going to Dodger Stadium from the year it opened until 20-something years ago. But now I’d have to wear industrial-strength ear protection.

Russell Stone
Westchester

I used to like bleacher seats but won’t sit there again — way too loud right under the sound system.

Bob Wieting
Simi Valley

Sure it’s “entertainment.” Sure the players like the enthusiasm. But there are seats located beneath or near speakers that are simply painful to the ears.

Richard Melniker
Los Angeles

APPRENTICE star and West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady answers your careers questions.

Here, Karren gives her expert career advice to a reader who wants to sell their artwork.

1

Q) At the age of 53, I’ve taken up painting, and I think I’m pretty good.

I mainly paint landscapes, and would like to see if I could make some money out of selling art.

My dream would be to retire early and live off the proceeds of my paintings before drawing my pension, though I don’t know how doable that is.

My biggest problem is that I don’t know where to start with selling paintings.

I use a computer for my office job, but I’m not very technically minded and I realise I need to create a website if I want to get my artwork seen.

But what else do I need to think about?

Pamela, via email

A) It’s fantastic that you’ve discovered a real passion for painting, and even better that you’re dreaming big and thinking about turning it into something profitable.

Don’t worry about jumping into building a website just yet – there are easier, more approachable ways to get your art seen.

Start small – take some good photos of your work (make sure you use natural light) and open an Instagram account.

The platform is free, simple to use and a great way to test the waters and see what reaction your paintings get.

I’d also suggest joining local art groups on Facebook, as I’ve seen so many people connect, sell their work and get advice that way.

Platforms like Artfinder and Etsy are also worth looking into, plus don’t underestimate the value of a local craft market to get face-to-face feedback and build your confidence.

Most importantly, make sure you sign your work and keep a log of each piece.

Finally, try to speak to other artists whenever and wherever you can – people are often more helpful than you might expect.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” now before the Senate takes the current preoccupation with making every governmental relationship transactional to an immoral extreme. It puts a $1,000 price tag on the right to seek asylum — the first time the United States would require someone to pay for this human right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” U.S. law incorporates that right, stating that “any alien … irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” Neither makes this right contingent on being able to pay.

Bear in mind that asylum seekers in the United States do not have the right to court-appointed attorneys. That means the system already profoundly disadvantages indigent asylum seekers — they can’t afford a lawyer, often don’t speak English and have no road map for navigating arcane immigration law.

The new law would make asylum even more inaccessible for a poor person, in effect, creating two classes of those seeking refuge here. Those wealthy enough to pay $1,000 up front would have their protection claims heard; those unable to pay would be shunted back to face persecution and the problems that drove them from their home countries to begin with.

If this part of the bill isn’t modified before its final passage, Congress will have piled on to the obstacles the Trump administration has already put in place to block the right to seek asylum. On Inauguration Day, President Trump proclaimed an invasion of the United States by “millions of aliens” and “suspend[ed] the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border.” Until the president decides the “invasion” is over, the order explicitly denies the right of any person to seek asylum if it would permit their continued presence in the United States.

Since Jan. 20, asylum seekers trying to enter the United States at the southwestern border have been turned away and, in some cases, loaded onto military planes and flown to third countries — Panama, for example — without any opportunity to make asylum claims.

“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried,” Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Christian convert from Iran, told Human Rights Watch after being sent to Panama. “Nobody listened to me …. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”

On top of the basic fee for asylum seekers, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would also require an asylum seeker to pay a fee of “not less than $550” every six months to be permitted to work in the U.S. while their claim is pending. The bill would also impose an additional $100 fee for every year an asylum application remains pending in the heavily backlogged system, punishing the person fleeing persecution for the government’s failure to provide sufficient immigration judges.

Children are not spared. For the privilege of sponsoring an unaccompanied migrant child, the bill would require the sponsor, often a relative who steps forward to care for the child, to pay a $3,500 fee. Congressional priorities for spending on unaccompanied children who arrive at our borders show a distinct lack of compassion: The bill directs that a $20-million appropriation for U.S. Customs and Border Protection “shall only be used to conduct an examination of such unaccompanied alien child for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings.”

Add to these barriers the complete shutdown of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, except for white South Africans; the termination of “humanitarian parole” for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the end of temporary protected status programs that have provided protection to people coming from countries of widespread conflict, and the travel ban that bars entry from some of the world’s top refugee-producing countries, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan.

In the meantime, Trump hypes the idea of selling $5-million “gold cards” for super rich foreigners who want to buy U.S. permanent residence. When asked who might be interested, Trump replied, “I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity (by my calculations, that would more than triple capacity). It also specifies $14.4 billion for ICE transportation and removal operations, $46.5 billion for the border wall and $858 million to pay bonuses to ICE officials.

With all the money Congress is prepared to spend, it’s a wonder the bill didn’t add a few dollars for sanding down the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty and re-chiseling it to say, “Give me your rich and well-rested … yearning to breathe free.”

Bill Frelick is refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report “‘Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened’: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama.”

Tensions soar at UN as Iran, allies condemn US military action, while US, Israel reject censure.

The United Nations Security Council has convened an emergency session following US-led strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, prompting sharp rebukes from several member states and renewed calls for a ceasefire in the Middle East, as allies Israel and the US lauded the attack.

Russia, China and Pakistan have proposed a resolution demanding an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire”, according to diplomats familiar with the draft circulated on Sunday. While the proposal does not explicitly name the United States or Israel, it condemns the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. A vote has not yet been scheduled.

To pass, the resolution requires the backing of at least nine members and no vetoes from the five permanent members — the US, UK, France, Russia and China, which makes it a non-starter since the US will not censure itself.

Speaking to the Council, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned the region stood “on the brink of a deadly downward spiral.”

“The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn in a region that is already reeling,” Guterres said. “We now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation. We must act – immediately and decisively – to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme.”

Acting US ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the military action, stating that Washington had moved to dismantle Iran’s enrichment capacity in order to protect both its citizens and allies.

“The time finally came for the United States, in defence of its ally and our own interests, to act decisively,” Shea told the chamber. “Iran should not escalate… any Iranian attack, direct or indirect, against Americans or American bases will be met with devastating retaliation.”

Iran’s Ambassador Ali Bahreini said the Israeli and US attacks on Iran did not come about “in a vacuum”, adding that they are the result of “politically motivated actions” of the US and its European partners.

He said the US “decided to destroy diplomacy” and pointedly made it clear that the Iranian military will decide on the  “timing, nature and scale” of its response.

Meanwhile, Israel’s UN envoy Danny Danon said the attacks had made the world “a safer place”, rejecting calls for condemnation. “That’s for the Iranian people to decide, not for us,” he said when asked whether Israel supported regime change in Tehran

China’s ambassador Fu Cong condemned the US strikes and urged restraint. “We call for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “China is deeply concerned about the risk of the situation getting out of control.”

Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya described the attacks as yet another sign of Washington’s disregard for global norms. “The US has opened a Pandora’s box,” he said. “No one knows what catastrophe or suffering will follow.”

Pakistan’s ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad also condemned the US bombing, calling it deeply troubling. “The sharp rise in tensions and violence as a result of Israeli aggression and unlawful actions is profoundly disturbing,” he said. “Pakistan stands in solidarity with the government and brotherly people of Iran during this challenging time.” This came the day after Pakistan suggested US President Donald Trump be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump’s announcement that American forces had “obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear sites marked the most significant Western military action against Tehran since the 1979 revolution.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, told the Council that while the scale of underground damage remains unclear, impact craters were visible at the Fordow enrichment site. The entrances to tunnels at Isfahan appeared to have been struck, while Natanz — long a target of Israeli sabotage — had been hit again.

Iran has castigated Grossi for being complicit in paving the way for Israel and the US to attack it.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog’s Board of Governors approved a resolution declaring Iran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards the day before Israel launched its initial attack on June 13.

Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have.

“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,” Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. “The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

What moment exactly is he referring to?

President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could “detain” protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful.

But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power.

The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance.

What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support.

If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump.

The president’s immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, “It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.”

Welcome to that fraught moment, America.

Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively?

“Everybody who’s not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of “How Democracies Die.”

Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence.

“You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom,” Levitsky said. “Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition.”

Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom’s reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected.

“Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control,” Newsom said.

I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention.

Republicans “need that violence to corroborate their talking points,” Mia Bloom told me. She’s an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University.

Violence “like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans,” she said.

Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises.

“You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior,” he said.

So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out.

And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting.

“Repressing protest is a very risky venture,” said Levitsky. “It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back.”

Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support.

A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters.

A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he’s handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations.

Bloom warns that there’s a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy.

“We’re at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies” she said.

She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers’ guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what’s needed now.

Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can’t know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky.

“It’s really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight,” he said. “If they don’t, citizens are going to look around and say, ‘Well, why should I?”

Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said.

Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too.