Shock rippled through Los Angeles this week as residents awoke to discover that officials had removed the city zoo’s last two elephants, Billy and Tina, without advance notice and transported them across state lines.
According to the Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Zoo, led by Zoo Director Denise Verret and with approval from Mayor Karen Bass, relocated the elephants to the Tulsa Zoo in a secretive overnight operation, despite widespread opposition from the public, animal experts, and celebrities who had urged their retirement to an animal sanctuary.
The zoo carried out the unexpected transfer early Monday morning, and eyewitnesses reported seeing the elephants restrained by ankle shackles shortly before they disappeared from their enclosure. By Tuesday, the empty elephant exhibit fueled speculation that the zoo had moved the animals without public disclosure.
Mayor Bass approved the \$44,000 relocation, and Verret led its organization. Critics have condemned the decision for disregarding months of advocacy urging officials to send the elephants to sanctuaries better suited for aging Asian elephants.
Billy, a 40-year-old male who has lived at the LA Zoo for 36 years, was captured from the wild in Malaysia at age 4. Tina, a 59-year-old female, was taken from the wild as a calf, endured years in a circus, and moved between facilities before arriving at the LA Zoo in 2010.
Celebrities such as Cher, Kim Basinger, and Nicola Peltz Beckham had implored Mayor Bass to reconsider the transfer, uniting in a formal plea advocating for placement in facilities like the Performing Animal Welfare Society sanctuary or the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Tulsa Zoo, which launched an expanded elephant habitat this April, is now home to Billy and Tina. However, elephant welfare specialist Dr. Chris Draper visited the facility on May 10 and condemned the conditions as inadequate and harmful to the animals’ health.
Draper cited cramped quarters, lack of shade, and terrain unsuitable for elephants. He also observed health issues in the existing herd at Tulsa — five elephants already residing there were underweight, lacked muscle tone, and one suffered from a cracked nail.
Animal advocacy organizations have responded harshly, accusing the LA Zoo of making the move based on administrative interests rather than animal welfare. The group In Defense of Animals said the middle-of-the-night transfer suggested the public was deliberately kept in the dark.
David Casselman, co-founder of the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary, said he offered to care for and transport Billy and Tina at no cost. However, Zoo Director Verret claimed she was unaware of the proposal during a recent city council hearing.
Casselman lamented the outcome, arguing that the elephants had endured long-term suffering only for officials to relocate them to what he described as an even worse environment. He called the decision “a missed opportunity” for both the mayor and the city to demonstrate leadership in ethical animal care.
Public scrutiny has intensified in light of past controversies surrounding the zoo. Critics have reported that the LA Zoo allowed seventeen elephants to die in its care over the years, and a superior court judge once ruled that its \$42 million Elephant of Asia Exhibit failed to improve elephant welfare.
Verret, who currently chairs the board of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, faces accusations of potential conflicts of interest. Critics speculate that her allegiance to AZA-approved facilities may have influenced the transfer decision.
In a separate issue unveiled earlier this month, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association named Verret in a sworn declaration, accusing her of misusing over \$365,000 for travel, personal parties, and office expenses. These allegations have intensified calls for her removal.
Activists, including Shira Astrof from The Animal Rescue Mission and Judie Mancuso of Social Compassion in Legislation, voiced frustration over the outcome, arguing that officials misled the public and placed the elephants’ future in a substandard facility.
In response to the outcry, an LA Zoo spokesperson stated that the zoo designed the move with Billy and Tina’s well-being in mind and emphasized the benefit of keeping the bonded pair together in a new habitat. The transfer is reportedly part of a Species Survival Plan — a coordinated zoo effort for endangered species.
The zoo claimed that celebrity advocates could have raised the necessary funds for sanctuary placement but maintained there were "no offers" from those parties, a claim at odds with Casselman’s testimony and documented proposal.
On social media, the backlash has been sharp. Commenters have accused Mayor Bass of betraying voters and exploiting her position, with some pushing for her resignation and calling November 3, 2026 — the next election day — "a moment of reckoning."
Nebraska is making history by becoming the first state to exclude soda and energy drinks from items eligible for food stamp purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Beginning January 1, 2026, approximately 150,000 low-income Nebraskans will be part of a first-of-its-kind two-year policy banning the use of SNAP benefits on sugary beverages and caffeinated energy drinks, Daily Mail reported.
Gov. Jim Pillen announced the change earlier this month, following approval of a waiver request that had previously been denied in other states. For over two decades, lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully to pass similar restrictions under prior federal administrations.
“There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks,” Pillen stated in a press release. He emphasized that SNAP's core mission is to help families in need obtain nutritious food.
Soda and energy drinks, two of the most common items bought with SNAP funds according to USDA data, will no longer be included on Nebraska’s list of eligible items under the updated rules. The ban aligns with broader national conversations on improving health through food policy.
In a formal letter to federal officials, Pillen criticized the role of energy drinks in children’s diets and highlighted concerns over caffeine levels, added sugars, and associated health risks. “Nebraska believes promoting nutritious foods will improve health and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease,” he wrote.
The decision comes on the heels of new research linking energy drink consumption in youth to a range of physical and mental health issues. A 2024 study published in the journal Public Health found that children who regularly consume energy drinks may experience anxiety, depression, obesity, heart complications, and a greater risk of suicide attempts.
Many of these drinks contain more caffeine per serving than a standard cup of coffee, as well as high levels of sugar. Some experts say these ingredients pose a particular threat to children’s neurological development and emotional well-being.
SNAP currently supports nearly 42 million Americans across the country. While most purchases include eligible foods like fruits, vegetable,s and proteins, USDA figures show more than $600 million a year is spent on sweetened drinks—including soda and energy beverages.
The Nebraska ban follows increasing pressure from federal voices, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been vocal in urging reform within SNAP to discourage junk food usage. Kennedy, who leads the Make America Healthy Again initiative, has frequently criticized soda and fast food culture.
While Kennedy has yet to respond to Nebraska’s specific SNAP ban, his past statements suggest support for such restrictions. He has warned that individuals adopting poor health habits, such as consistent junk food consumption, should not expect automatic access to government health care coverage.
“If you’re smoking three packs of cigarettes a day, should you expect society to pay when you get sick?” Kennedy asked in a past interview. He has also said that people who consume excessive sugar through soda or doughnuts cannot expect the public to pay when preventable illnesses emerge.
Nebraska’s waiver has immediately drawn interest from other Republican-controlled states. Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, and West Virginia have since submitted proposals to modify which foods SNAP recipients can and cannot purchase.
Some states aim to ban additional junk food categories, while others seek approval to expand hot prepared food options within the program. The USDA has not cleared any of these proposals so far.
This move signals a new era of state-level influence over SNAP spending, which the federal government has largely standardized since the program’s inception. These developments could pave the way for a more fragmented, state-specific SNAP policy framework.
The move may prove controversial not only among public health experts and social welfare advocates but also within political circles. Former President Donald Trump, recently inaugurated for a second term, is known for his regular consumption of fast food and diet soda.
Trump famously reinstalled a red button in the Oval Office to summon Diet Coke, underscoring his well-publicized affinity for sugary beverages. This stands in contrast with reform-minded leaders like Pillen and Kennedy, who are pushing for significant shifts in food policy.
Public response remains divided, with some praising the reform as a step toward combating preventable disease and others cautioning against what they see as paternalism in federal nutrition aid. Still, Pillen insists this is about creating healthier outcomes, especially for children.
The two-year ban will serve as a testing ground for health and economic outcomes in low-income Nebraskan households. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has committed to monitoring the impacts closely.
"Ensuring Nebraska children have the advantage of a healthy diet supports brain development and prepares them for success throughout their lives," Pillen said. He added that removing unhealthy options from SNAP reflects the state’s responsibility to promote wellness among vulnerable populations.
Depending on the success and public reception of the policy, Nebraska's approach may influence other states to take similar actions or seek alternative regulatory paths within SNAP. For now, the country will be watching closely as this unprecedented food policy takes shape.
Donald Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million private Boeing 747 from Qatar has triggered deep concerns about possible espionage threats and national security risks.
According to the US Sun, the aircraft, gifted by the Qatari royal family as a temporary alternative to Air Force One, is drawing sharp criticism from aviation and security experts who warn that safeguarding it could take years and cost billions.
At age 78, the former president added a lavish new aircraft to his transport options, courtesy of Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Observers describe the plane, a Boeing 747-8 model, as a “flying palace,” outfitted with luxury interiors valued at an estimated \$400 million.
The designers did not initially design the aircraft for presidential-level security. Experts argue that without substantial upgrades, vulnerabilities to everything from cyber intrusions to missile threats remain. These concerns escalated after Trump accepted the jet, which some speculate he may use during his current presidential term, despite ongoing delays to the official Air Force One replacement.
Aviation journalist and security analyst Jeff Wise has spoken out strongly against the use of the Qatari jet as an Air Force One stand-in. Wise emphasized that the aircraft could become a top target for foreign intelligence services and adversarial governments. He stated that even U.S. allies carry out surveillance on one another and that this aircraft would serve as an ideal surveillance subject.
Wise raised concerns about the lack of protective measures on board. Unlike the existing presidential aircraft, this plane does not yet include secure communications or defense systems. “It’s just wide open,” Wise said, warning that the absence of fortified systems makes it extremely attractive to hackers and other hostile entities.
In its current state, using the aircraft could pose serious national security challenges. According to Wise, any hurried attempt to operationalize the plane could mean essential security features are skipped or insufficiently implemented. This, he says, could jeopardize both the president and U.S. secrets.
Wise told reporters the plane would need extensive and costly modifications to meet security protocols required for a presidential aircraft. He estimates it could take multiple years and billions of dollars to bring the jet up to standard. He also warns about the Trump administration’s track record on secure communications, describing it as a “hacker’s dream.”
The U.S. currently operates two Boeing 747-200 planes as Air Force One, each in service since 1990. A 2018 deal with Boeing for newer replacements is now facing a delay, pushing the estimated completion date to 2029. That timeline has spurred urgency in the Trump camp to fast-track the Qatari aircraft into use before the end of his current term in office.
Wise suspects such urgency may lead to oversights. When asked what would happen if corners were cut in the retrofitting process, he replied, “Now, what are you going to decide to cut? What are you going to decide to leave out?”
The global threat landscape also adds to the concern. Wise pointed to countries such as Iran, Russia, and the militant Houthi group as potential actors who may wish to interfere with or target the presidential aircraft. According to John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, both he and Trump remain on an Iranian hit list.
If properly outfitted, the aircraft must undergo strict detection procedures to eliminate possible bugs or hidden surveillance devices. Wise stated that the job of sweeping the jet would be large in scope, saying, “It would be a huge job to try to sweep it and make sure it’s not compromised.”
He further shared that foreign intelligence operatives could attempt to pose as personnel on refueling or catering crews to install hidden devices during ground operations. “Imagine all the people who surround an airplane when it’s on the tarmac. Refuelers, caterers, security, etc.”
Beyond logistics and defense, ethical concerns have also come into play. Some observers have noted that a U.S. president may never have accepted a more valuable personal gift. Critics argue that, regardless of whether the aircraft benefits taxpayers in the long run, the optics of accepting such an extravagant foreign gift are problematic.
Trump has defended the acquisition, claiming that using the aircraft would ultimately help reduce costs for Americans. However, skeptics point out that taxpayers may still bear the burden of retrofitting the aircraft for secure presidential use, which could far outweigh any savings.
Wise summed up the issue by labeling the jet an “albatross” requiring massive expenditure just to become viable, adding, “This is a massive headache for you if your job is to protect the President of the United States or the secrets of the United States.”
With new enemies emerging and technological vulnerabilities mounting, aviation analysts say the United States will need to weigh the benefits of using the plane against the high risks and costs of making it safe for presidential service.
For now, experts continue urging caution, noting that while the plane may be luxurious, it remains, for the moment, unprotected. How quickly or safely it can be transformed remains uncertain.
Thousands of Bank of America customers in New York may be eligible for compensation following a multimillion-dollar settlement over claims the bank improperly charged fees on protected accounts.
Bank of America has agreed to pay $2.85 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it mishandled accounts protected by state law, with affected consumers potentially receiving around $35 in restitution before a May 19, 2025, deadline to act, the US Sun reported.
The financial institution faced legal action for allegedly violating New York’s Exempt Income Protection Act, or EIPA, a law that shields specific types of income from debt collection. EIPA covers funds like Social Security payments, state pensions, and unemployment benefits, ensuring they cannot be seized to cover outstanding debts.
According to the lawsuit, between January 1, 2009, and February 17, 2023, Bank of America imposed fees on consumer accounts that should have been exempt under this law. Plaintiffs argued the bank’s process for calculating exempt income failed to comply with the requirements of EIPA.
Central to the complaint was the allegation that the bank determined the total amount of exempt income by adding together all account balances from the same customer. EIPA, however, requires each account to be evaluated separately to determine whether the funds in it are protected.
Another point raised in the case was that Bank of America sent exempt funds to customers by issuing certified checks, instead of depositing those funds directly back into customers’ accounts. This allegedly triggered additional fees and potential hardships for people reliant on legally protected income.
Though the bank has denied wrongdoing in its handling of accounts, it agreed to the $2.85 million settlement to resolve the case and avoid the uncertainty and cost of further litigation. The settlement encompasses a wide timeframe, covering more than 14 years of banking activity in New York.
Customers eligible for payment under the class action will not need to file a claim form, as eligible individuals will automatically receive a disbursement unless they choose to opt out or object by the May 19, 2025, deadline.
The settlement administrators project the average reimbursement to be approximately \$35, though final amounts may vary depending on the specific fees charged to each account over the relevant period. Customers who want to exclude themselves from the settlement or formally object must act before the deadline arrives.
A judge will hold the final approval hearing on June 18, 2025. At that time, the judge will decide whether the settlement is fair and reasonable and whether to finalize the proposed disbursement plan.
In addition to financial reimbursement, Bank of America has agreed to revise its practices to comply more closely with New York law. The bank has already enacted several changes in recent years to address concerns raised in the lawsuit.
Since August 2017, the bank no longer aggregates multiple accounts to determine the total amount of exempt income. This change aligns with the EIPA’s requirement to evaluate each account independently for exemption eligibility.
Further changes came in February 2023, when Bank of America stopped issuing certified checks for exempt funds and began keeping that income in customers’ accounts. This shift helps avoid additional costs and makes it easier for customers to access their funds.
The settlement also requires the bank to maintain adjustments to its protocols to prevent future violations of the EIPA. Compliance efforts aim to ensure that income meant to be protected from debt collection remains accessible to account holders going forward.
People who believe they belong to the settlement class should monitor communications from the settlement administrator for further details on their eligibility. The administrator will make direct payments once they grant final approval.
Although recipients do not need to take further action to receive a payment, the deadline to contest or opt out of the settlement remains firm. These deadlines give affected customers their last opportunity to participate in the legal proceeding.
For many impacted account holders, the outcome represents a small but significant step toward correcting past banking practices that may have adversely affected recipients of protected income under New York law.
Just months after shuttering nearly 1,400 stores, Big Lots is making its return to retail with a new owner, a new pricing approach and a renewed focus on bargain-hunting shoppers.
Variety Wholesalers, which acquired Big Lots in January, is reopening select stores with a promise of lower everyday prices and a fast-paced inventory model that encourages repeat visits, the US Sun reported.
The relaunch comes after Big Lots filed for bankruptcy last September, citing the toll of persistent inflation on its customer base and operations. That move forced the closure of all 1,392 locations, marking a significant retreat from physical retail by the discount chain. Its pivot to furniture-focused sales in recent years had led to sluggish revenue and customer disengagement, according to the company’s new leadership.
In early 2025, North Carolina-based Variety Wholesalers, parent company of several other retail chains, acquired 219 Big Lots stores and two distribution centers through a transaction led by Gordon Brothers Retail Partners. CEO Lisa Seigies of Variety Wholesalers has since spearheaded efforts to reposition Big Lots as an everyday low-price destination, distancing the brand from the inconsistent pricing strategies of its previous ownership.
“The former Big Lots got too expensive and the assortment wasn’t everyday,” Seigies told the New York Post. She emphasized that the previous approach of temporary markdowns and sales events failed to match the value expectations of price-conscious shoppers.
Beginning in April, stores began reopening under the updated Big Lots vision. As of mid-May, roughly 60 stores have reopened across several southeastern U.S. states. A total of 70 stores are expected to be operating again soon, with full-scale reopenings culminating in a grand celebration planned for this fall.
The second wave of reopenings began on Thursday, May 15, in an effort to grow the company’s presence and reintroduce the brand to communities it previously served. Seigies noted that while not all reopened stores will be fully stocked or polished at the start, merchandise will be added and refined as the year moves forward.
“We know the stores won’t be perfect to start,” Seigies said. “But each week we’ll add more new products as we build toward the grand opening celebration in the fall.”
At the heart of the Big Lots relaunch is a unique inventory strategy that Seigies referred to as a “treasure hunt” model. The approach involves fast-changing product selections and no reordering of individual items, creating motivation for shoppers to return often in search of limited-time deals.
“We are creating a treasure hunt where we don’t reorder the same item,” Seigies said. The goal is to simulate the excitement of a constantly shifting product floor, with customers never knowing exactly what they might find on any given visit.
Shoppers exploring reopened Big Lots locations will now discover well-known discount labels such as Joe Boxer, Fruit of the Loom, US Polo Assn, Wrangler and Bebe. The company has also added a new apparel department, bringing a broader variety of clothing options for families.
Another significant pivot in the Big Lots relaunch is its commitment to an “everyday low price” structure. Unlike before, the stores will no longer rely on short-term discounts or sale events to drive traffic.
Seigies highlighted that pricing will now be consistent and value-oriented, giving customers predictability and assurance. “There is no sale tomorrow. It is what it is,” she stated, signaling a clear departure from the erratic pricing strategies that alienated shoppers in the past.
Under the new pricing system, customers will still find brand-name goods at significantly reduced costs, but without the need to wait for specific promotions or clearance events. This transparent approach, Seigies hopes, will rebuild trust and maintain steady foot traffic year-round.
Despite the obstacles of a post-bankruptcy turnaround, Seigies expressed optimism that Big Lots can once again find a loyal customer base. “We’re opening stores quickly so we can serve the community,” she said in April, reiterating the company’s dedication to returning as a neighborhood staple.
By launching just a portion of its acquired store locations, Variety Wholesalers is taking a phased approach to avoid the mistakes of the past. Each store that reopens acts as both a test and a signal, representing a carefully tailored step toward rebuilding the Big Lots identity.
The staggered reopening schedule also allows inventory adjustments based on buyer habits and product popularity, making the chain more agile than before.
As the brand works toward stability, the company plans a larger coordinated celebration for the fall. This grand opening will mark the official return of Big Lots as a revitalized discount destination with an expanded range of product offerings.
Seigies has emphasized that patience from shoppers during these early weeks will be crucial. The company remains committed to enhancing store layouts, expanding inventory and delivering strong consumer value across reopened locations in the months ahead.
For now, the company’s strategy hinges on combining new branding with affordability, streamlined shopping and the sense of discovery many shoppers find rewarding.
A man who used fake diamond rings to carry out a series of thefts at a Pennsylvania Walmart has been sentenced to state prison after years of evading justice.
Matthew Patrick Gay, 34, stole over $7,000 worth of jewelry in 2022 through a diamond ring switch scheme, skipped sentencing in 2024, and was only recently taken into custody and sentenced in both Berks and Bradford counties, the US Sun reported.
The thefts began in 2022 at a Walmart located in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. During multiple incidents that year, Gay went to the jewelry counter and asked to see diamond rings. Store employees allowed him to handle the rings, unaware of what he was planning.
According to investigators, Gay had brought counterfeit rings in his pocket and discreetly swapped them with the real ones. Once the switch was made, he returned the fake ring to the employee and walked out of the store with the genuine item.
In total, seven rings were stolen using this deceptive lens-swapping strategy. Authorities determined that the combined value of the stolen rings was $7,362.50.
Walmart employees eventually noticed inconsistencies with the jewelry inventory. After reporting the discrepancies, investigators reviewed in-store surveillance footage, which provided visual confirmation of the thefts.
Footage revealed Gay at the jewelry counter during multiple visits, handling the real rings and walking away with the legitimate merchandise. After the investigation confirmed the pattern, he was arrested in October 2022.
Gay was charged in connection with the thefts and was expected to be sentenced in August 2024 in Bradford County. However, he failed to appear in court for that hearing, prompting a warrant for his arrest.
While evading capture after skipping his sentencing, Gay committed additional thefts in Berks County, Pennsylvania. These crimes were similar to those at the Walmart in 2022, indicating a continued pattern.
Law enforcement officials eventually located and apprehended Gay, bringing him into custody to face charges related to the new thefts in Berks County. His criminal conduct while on the run added to the seriousness of his record.
A judge in Berks County sentenced Gay to a prison term ranging from five months to two years. In addition to incarceration, he was placed on two years of probation following his release.
In April 2025, Gay was transported back to Bradford County to finally face sentencing for the original Walmart theft case. The court weighed both his original offenses and his actions while evading authorities.
Bradford County District Attorney Richard Wilson noted the seriousness of Gay's actions and the impact on the community and the store. Prosecutors highlighted his extensive criminal past, which factored into the final sentencing decision.
“Gay’s criminal history includes more than two dozen offenses of this nature,” District Attorney Wilson stated. “For that reason, a lengthy State Prison sentence is appropriate.”
Wilson emphasized that incarcerating Gay was a necessary step in protecting the public and businesses from financial harm. “It appears to be the only way we can protect society from Matthew Gay’s thievery,” Wilson said.
The court ultimately sentenced Gay to a term of 23 months and 258 days in state prison for the Bradford County thefts. This sentence was given in addition to the previous sentence he was serving from Berks County.
The combined rulings reflect the legal system's response to repeated and deliberate thefts spanning multiple jurisdictions. Authorities hope the sentence sends a message regarding the consequences of property crimes and fleeing legal responsibility.
What made Gay's case particularly noteworthy was the methodical nature of the ring swap scheme. Bringing counterfeit items into a retail setting and orchestrating consistent swaps required premeditation and planning.
Jewelry thieves often target less-secure environments, but few use tactics involving precise replacement using nearly identical-looking items. Surveillance footage played a key role in understanding how the switch was performed without immediate detection.
Although retailers like Walmart typically have security protocols, Gay’s tactic was able to bypass them temporarily, at least until a pattern emerged. Law enforcement underscored the value of video evidence in identifying repeat offenders.
From the initial Walmart thefts in 2022 to his avoidance of a court date in 2024 and final sentencing in 2025, Gay eluded justice for several years. The culmination of his actions resulted in prison terms in two Pennsylvania counties.
Retail theft remains a serious issue for major stores, and this case illustrates how such crimes can unfold over extended periods if not promptly addressed. Investigators believe that earlier recognition of the pattern may have limited further offenses.
As of May 2025, Gay is serving consecutive prison sentences and remains in custody. Authorities have not disclosed when he is expected to become eligible for parole.
Former President Donald Trump ignited controversy Friday after releasing a string of pointed messages targeting music icons Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen on his Truth Social account.
According to the US Sun, Trump responded to Springsteen’s criticism overseas and renewed his attacks on Swift for her political support of Democrats ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
The social media posts came one day after Springsteen condemned Trump’s former administration during a speech in Manchester, England. In his remarks, the legendary rocker referred to the Trump presidency as “corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous,” while accusing it of harming working-class Americans and compromising civil rights progress in the United States.
Springsteen also accused the administration of “siding with dictators” and turning away from democratic allies around the globe. His statements mark one of the musician's strongest denunciations of Trump delivered on international soil.
Trump replied the following day by blasting Springsteen in a series of inflammatory Truth Social posts while also directing insults at pop star Taylor Swift. The former president called Springsteen “highly overrated,” added that he had “never liked his music,” and described his views as “radical left politics.”
Trump’s reaction came even as he is reportedly in the Middle East engaging in discussions related to nuclear negotiations with Iran. Despite the ongoing diplomatic effort, he took time to criticize Springsteen for discussing U.S. leadership while abroad.
“I see that highly overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a foreign country to speak badly about the President of the United States,” Trump posted online. He went on to dismiss Springsteen as a “dried out prune,” urging the singer to “keep his mouth shut until he gets back into the country.”
Trump escalated his criticism by questioning both Springsteen's intelligence and intent. He said, “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn't see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!).”
The former president also reignited his feud with Swift, suggesting her popularity had waned since he publicly criticized her. He wrote, “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I hate Taylor Swift,’ she’s no longer ‘hot?’”
Swift has been a prominent critic of Trump in recent years, beginning in 2018 when she broke from her previously apolitical public profile. The singer voiced support for Democratic candidates in her home state of Tennessee that year and has remained politically active since.
In the 2020 election cycle, Swift shared messages encouraging her fans to vote and posted themed baked goods featuring the names of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. In 2024, heading into the presidential campaign, Swift publicly praised then-vice presidential candidate Harris, describing her as a “warrior” and a “gifted leader.”
Following what was considered an “embarrassing loss” for Vice President Harris during the November 2024 election, Swift tapered her political activity. While she hasn’t offered further commentary, her longstanding opposition to Trump remains part of her public history.
Trump also took a swipe at Swift’s boyfriend, NFL player Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs, after the team’s recent Super Bowl defeat to the Philadelphia Eagles. Trump noted that he had attended the game, claiming, “I watched in person. I was there along with Taylor Swift.”
He directed a jab toward Kelce and Swift by adding, “How did that work out?” before moving on to further criticize her political leanings and cultural relevance.
Springsteen and Swift, although from different musical backgrounds, have both publicly taken issue with Trump over the years for his political stances and leadership style. Springsteen's criticisms have become louder in recent months, especially during international tour stops where he has addressed U.S. politics on stage.
Trump’s sharp rhetoric toward both artists underscores his ongoing tensions with celebrity critics and signals a possible re-escalation of culture war narratives as 2025 progresses.
While neither Swift nor Springsteen has publicly replied to Trump’s latest comments, both have significant platforms and fan bases known for responding swiftly to political attacks. The long history of this feud suggests the exchange may not end here.
In a significant safety move, America's largest car manufacturer has initiated a recall of nearly 274,000 SUVs due to a dangerous brake flaw. This defect can potentially lead to on-road accidents.
A recall by America's top carmaker for over 270,000 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators spans from 2022 to 2024 models due to a fault threatening brake functionality, Daily Mail reported.
The nationwide recall encompasses 223,315 Ford Expeditions and 50,474 Lincoln Navigators, tailoring its focus on models rolled out between 2022 and 2024. The hazard recognized involves the potential for a degradation in braking capacity stemming from a structural flaw.
The Root of the Recall: Recognizing a Risk
Scrutiny by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pinpointed that the SUVs' front brake lines might prematurely deteriorate by rubbing against the engine air cleaner outlet pipe. This observation was initially identified as a possible installation error.
The interaction between the brake line and other components can lead to a brake fluid leak. Gradually, this leakage results in diminished brake function, compelling drivers to apply additional force to the brake pedal to achieve a stop. Such a scenario dramatically escalates the risk of accidents.
Chronology of Events and Manufacturer's Response
Ford has acknowledged receiving 45 reports of such incidents from consumers, signalling the potential gravity of the issue. These reports were collated from late 2022 through mid-2024, emphasizing an ongoing concern that needed immediate addressal.
In response to the emerging problems, Ford launched a comprehensive investigation between March and April 2025. This scrutiny traced the problem back to changes made during the installation process of radiator hoses in their Kentucky Truck Plant on November 20, 2024. This alteration, although aimed at preventing the brake line from bending during assembly, inadvertently introduced new risks.
For customers, resolution begins with a notification from the manufacturer starting May 26, detailing the recall and subsequent steps. Vehicle owners are guided necessary corrective measures to mitigate the defect's risks.
At authorized Ford and Lincoln dealerships, an inspection and potential replacement regime will be set up. Technicians will check the involved brake lines and, if found faulty, will replace them along with the air cleaner outlet pipe. This service, ensuring vehicle safety is reinstated, will be offered at no charge to SUV owners.
"The dealer will replace the brake line or air cleaner outlet pipe as required. There will be no charge for this service," further elaborates the terms of the recall notice, making clear Ford's commitment to safety and customer satisfaction.
Ensuring Safety Going Forward
In light of the current recall, Ford pledges continued vigilance. The automotive giant reassures that maintaining high safety standards and promptly addressing any potential hazards are top priorities, highlighting their commitment to consumer safety.
Vehicular safety recalls are not uncommon in the auto industry, but the scope and proactive nature of this recall underscore the significance Ford places on customer safety and brand integrity.
The initiative also propels industry-wide discussions about manufacturing practices and quality control, with implications perhaps leading to more refined and rigorous production protocols across the sector.
While the recall stirs some concerns about initial safety checks during model design and release, it also garners positive reactions from the public regarding Ford's responsiveness and transparent handling of the issue.
Vehicle safety experts applaud the proactive steps, suggesting that Ford's quick acknowledgment and rectification efforts may set a benchmark in corporate responsibility in the automotive realm.
Meanwhile, customers look forward to the implementation of the recall and subsequent enhancements, hoping for improved safety and performance assurances from one of America's most trusted car brands.
A Chicago police officer tasked with protecting Mayor Brandon Johnson has been suspended following an incident of reported intoxication during his duty hours.
Josue Najera, the officer in question, displayed signs of intoxication after attending a celebration event at Trump Tower, the Daily Mail reported.
The Chicago Police Department scheduled Josue Najera, a 44-year-old officer, for an overnight shift beginning at 9 p.m. on January 20 to guard the residence of Chicago's Mayor, Brandon Johnson. However, his conduct immediately raised concerns among his colleagues. Najera had attended a party that lasted from 10 am to 3 pm the same day at Trump Tower, a gathering held in celebration of Donald Trump's inauguration.
Upon Najera's arrival for his shift, his behavior was noticeably off. He demonstrated agitation, spoke louder than usual, exhibited erratic movements, and consistently avoided eye contact. Witnesses observed that Najera's demeanor was significantly different from his usual professional conduct.
Concerned by his behavior, Najera's sergeant approached him for a discussion. According to the sergeant’s report, when queried about his day, Najera admitted to consuming alcohol while attending the event with his family at Trump Tower. Realizing the potential severity of the situation, his supervisor conducted a breathalyzer test, which revealed his blood alcohol content to be 0.134 percent—far exceeding the Illinois legal limit of 0.08 percent.
These results had immediate and severe implications. Supervisors immediately suspended Najera’s police powers, confiscated his service weapon, and escorted him to the 15th District station for further investigation into his condition.
The following day, Najera complied with protocol and surrendered his police identification, badge, and hat shield. In response to the incident, department leaders reassigned him to the Alternate Response Section—a less critical, non-field role.
In light of the incident, a suspension of 25 days has been recommended for Officer Najera. This pending suspension arises not only from the nature of the incident but also due to its potential implications on public safety and the integrity of the police force.
Officer Najera, who had been a member of the Chicago Police Force since 2017 and assigned to the mayor’s security detail in August 2023, has had a clean record up until this event. He has never previously been the subject of misconduct complaints or a Summary Punishment Action Request. This incident marks the first major blemish on his professional record.
The Chicago Police Department and Mayor Johnson's office have yet to release any formal statements regarding the incident. This absence of immediate public acknowledgment is not uncommon in sensitive cases involving personnel matters.
The police department has enforced its protocols by actively addressing potential officer misconduct, especially in cases where an officer’s ability to perform their duties may be compromised. The sergeant’s immediate response demonstrates the need for swift action and underscores the critical importance of maintaining public trust and safety.
This incident starkly reminds the public of the high standards that law enforcement officers must uphold. Since the public entrusts police officers with significant power and responsibility, officers must demonstrate a correspondingly high level of personal conduct and professionalism—particularly when serving in sensitive roles, such as the security detail for public figures like Mayor Brandon Johnson.
The internal affairs division now takes over the case and will conduct further evaluations. Officials will review the recommendations, including the proposed 25-day suspension, before making a final decision about Officer Najera’s future in the Chicago Police Department.
Sam's Club is rolling out significant updates to its food court services, taking on fierce competition from Costco.
According to the US Sun, these enhancements include curbside pizza pickup and extended operating hours, as Sam's Club strives to meet customer demands.
Previously, the food courts at Sam's Club had shorter operational hours compared to the main stores, typically closing earlier in the evening. This limited customers' access to food services late in the day, unlike their chief rival, Costco, whose food courts operate on the store's full schedule.
To address this gap, Sam's Club has decided to extend its food court hours. Now, these facilities will remain open for as long as the main stores operate, aligning Sam's Club more closely with Costco's customer service model.
However, this extension comes with challenges, especially for the staff. The company requires employees to finish their cleanup and closing duties within an hour after the food court closes, a task that previously allotted more time.
According to posts made by employees on social media platforms such as Reddit, this condensed timeframe for closing tasks is causing distress among the staff. They express concerns over the feasibility of completing all necessary tasks, which include extensive cleaning, dishwashing, and restocking, within the newly tightened schedule.
"So I work Cafe. We usually close at 7 pm throughout the week and 6 pm on Sundays. Today, we were informed that we will now be closing at 8, but still clocking out at 9. So the hour and a half, sometimes almost 2 hours of cleaning and closing has to be done in less than an hour now... is this company-wide or just my store?" shared one employee on Reddit.
Another employee commented on the practical challenges of the new schedule, highlighting how staff are penalized for any overtime, "We get yelled at for going 1 minute over, how do they expect us to get all this done?"
In addition to the extended hours, Sam's Club is introducing a new takeout pizza option, likely priced around $9.94, to align with Costco's pricing strategy. Sam's Club expects this move to attract more customers by offering them the convenience of picking up whole pizzas curbside—enhancing their shopping experience.
While this initiative aims to boost sales and customer satisfaction, it adds another layer of responsibility on the food court staff, already dealing with increased workloads due to the extended operational hours.
As reported by employees on social platforms, these changes have escalated workload expectations without altering clock-out times, significantly impacting their work-life balance.
On social media, customers had previously expressed a desire for longer food court hours at Sam's Club. "I wish Sam's Club Food Court stayed open all Day like the whole Store. I'm tryna grab a pizza," mentioned a user in March, indicating a strong customer demand for such enhancements.
The implementation of these new services comes at a critical time when big-box retailers are fiercely competing for customer loyalty and increased foot traffic in their stores. With Costco leading in several areas, Sam's Club's strategy aims to level the playing field and enhance its appeal to consumers.
Despite the potential benefits of these changes to customers, the adjustment period is proving challenging for Sam's Club employees. The overall success of these initiatives will likely depend not only on customer satisfaction but also on how well the company supports its workers during this transitional phase.