We have a curated list of the most noteworthy news from all across the globe. With any subscription plan, you get access to exclusive articles that let you stay ahead of the curve.
We have a curated list of the most noteworthy news from all across the globe. With any subscription plan, you get access to exclusive articles that let you stay ahead of the curve.
We have a curated list of the most noteworthy news from all across the globe. With any subscription plan, you get access to exclusive articles that let you stay ahead of the curve.
We have a curated list of the most noteworthy news from all across the globe. With any subscription plan, you get access to exclusive articles that let you stay ahead of the curve.
French President Emmanuel Macron issued a stern message to Donald Trump on Thursday, urging a more serious approach to the situation with Iran and dismissing calls for military intervention to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as unrealistic.
Macron critiqued the U.S. President’s recent inconsistent remarks on the conflict, advising Trump to consider speaking less frequently on the matter. The French leader emphasized that negotiations with Tehran are the only viable solution to ensure the free passage of a significant portion of the world’s oil supply through the Strait.
This comes in the wake of Trump’s first live address since the onset of the conflict, during which he urged European countries to take charge of securing the vital maritime corridor. Trump argued that NATO allies should spearhead efforts to reopen the shipping lane, suggesting they have a greater dependence on it than the United States does.
Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper hosted an international summit attended by representatives from over 40 countries to discuss the issue, notably without American participation.
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Thursday hosted an international summit of more than 40 nations on the issue – with America notably absent.
She hit out at Tehran for its strikes on 25 vessels that have trapped 20,000 crew on some 2,000 ships. Ms Cooper said Iranian ‘recklessness towards countries who were never involved in this conflict’ has hit ‘mortgage rates and petrol prices’ in the UK and endangered ‘our global economic security’.
She called on those present to mobilise the ‘full range of diplomatic and economic tools’ as well as finding ways of reassuring the shipping insurance market.
She later said measures could include ‘working with the International Maritime Organisation to ensure that the first stranded ships can get moving again’.
Emmanuel Macron told Donald Trump on Thursday to get ‘serious’ over Iran as he dismissed the demands to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force as ‘unrealistic’
The French President also took aim at the US President’s recent wildly conflicting statements on the war, telling him: ‘Perhaps you shouldn’t talk every day’
In a statement after the virtual meeting, Ms Cooper said they had explored ‘co-ordinated economic and political measures, such as sanctions, to bear down on Iran if the Strait remains closed’.
In response to Mr Trump, she said: ‘Our job is to take decisions in the UK national interest.’
She added: ‘We’ve taken a different view from the US from early on and we didn’t get drawn into offensive action in the Middle East because we thought that there were real concerns about escalation risks, impact – including on the economy – and also the need for a proper plan.’
The summit followed wild statements from Mr Trump, who has veered between saying the US will open the Strait alone to demanding Europe clear it without help.
In his address on Wednesday, he said: ‘The countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage.
‘They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it, they can do it easily. We will be helpful but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.’
He added they must ‘build up some delayed courage’.
However, Mr Macron, on a visit to South Korea on Thursday, rebuffed the President’s latest call to arms for Western allies.
He said: ‘There are those who advocate for the liberation of the Strait of Hormuz by force through a military operation, a position sometimes expressed by the United States. I say sometimes because it has varied, it is never the option we have chosen and we consider it unrealistic.’
Mr Macron said such an operation would be exposed to ‘coastal threats’ from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) which possesses ‘significant resources as well as ballistic missiles’. Calling for a ceasefire and return to negotiations, the French President added: ‘This can only be done in concert with Iran.’
Taking aim at Mr Trump’s inconsistent messaging, he told the US leader: ‘You have to be serious.
‘When you want to be serious, you don’t say the opposite every day of what you said the day before. And perhaps you shouldn’t talk every day.’
It comes after Mr Trump threatened to pull out of Nato over what he sees as betrayal by the alliance over Iran. Mr Macron warned him that by creating ‘daily doubt about his commitment’ he will ‘hollow it out’. Iran is seizing on the economic fallout caused by its closure of the Strait by setting up a de-facto toll system open to friendly ships if they pay £1.5million.
Its foreign ministry spokesman said it is allowing ships to pass through as long as they ‘do not belong to the aggressor and are not related to them’.
Analysts will now consider how to make the Strait ‘accessible and safe’ after fighting is over. But that is not expected to involve Royal Navy warships to police the waterway.
Bridget Diakun, a senior risk and compliance analyst, said a small number of oil and gas tankers are now passing through after being granted safe passage through ‘diplomatic channels’.
She told the BBC: ‘From what we understand, the owners and operators of the ships are acting through intermediaries to contact Iranian authorities and the IRGC to get approval to go through the Strait.’
The money charged was said to be a ‘drop in the pool of money that you’re earning’ – roughly working out at one dollar per barrel.
As the world economy continues to suffer, Italy on Thursday called for a ‘humanitarian corridor’ to allow fertiliser and other essentials through and avoid a food disaster in Africa.
The much-awaited film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel, “It Ends With Us,” was overshadowed by whispers of tension between its lead actors, Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
Speculation of discord surfaced when fans observed that the duo did not participate in joint promotional activities and appeared to steer clear of each other during the premiere on August 6, 2024.
At the time, Page Six was informed by multiple sources that the relationship between Baldoni and Lively on set was less than amicable.
One insider revealed that Baldoni, who also took on the directorial role, left Lively feeling “uncomfortable” and fostered a “challenging” environment for the entire cast.
While some individuals familiar with Baldoni insisted that he would not deliberately cause discomfort, other insiders noted that “none of the cast enjoyed working with Justin.”
Four months later, Lively filed a sexual harassment complaint against Baldoni and accused him of trying to “destroy” her reputation.
She filed a formal lawsuit in December 2024, the same day that Baldoni sued the New York Times for $250 million over the outlet’s reporting — before eventually countersuing Lively as well.
Read on to learn everything we know about the “It Ends With Us” drama.
Creative differences
Part of the reason for Baldoni and Lively’s feud was reportedly because there were deep creative differences on set, according to the Hollywood Reporter. While Baldoni was the director, Lively was also a producer in the film.
“There was a fracture among the filmmakers in the postproduction process, wherein two different cuts of the movie emerged,” the outlet reported.
A source also said Lively commissioned a cut of the movie from editor Shane Reid, who worked on husband Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman’s “Deadpool & Wolverine.”
Reid previously worked with Lively on Taylor Swift’s “I Bet You Think About Me” music video, which she directed.
The “Gossip Girl” alum highlighted one example of creative differences was using Lana Del Rey’s “Cherry,” which was “too charged and heavy,” in the film.
Rolling her eyes, she told Hits Radio UK, “They begged me to take it out of the movie. … I’m not supposed to be talking about this.”
Ryan Reynolds’ role
Lively and Baldoni’s creative differences could have been further fueled when Reynold seemingly took over the writing for one of the scenes in the movie.
During the movie’s premiere, Lively told E! News, “The iconic rooftop scene, my husband actually wrote it. Nobody knows that, but you now.
“He works on everything I do. I work on everything he does,” she noted at the time.
All hands on deck
Baldoni also revealed that Lively was “involved in every aspect” of its production.
“[With] every touch, she made [it] better,” he told “Extra.”
“I’m grateful to Blake for just being a powerhouse of a performer and an amazing collaborator and just all the people, the crew,” Baldoni added.
Passing the baton
After confessions of Reynold and Lively’s involvement, Baldoni suggested that he wouldn’t be returning as a director for the sequel, “It Starts With Us.”
While speaking with “Entertainment Tonight,” he called the actress, who played Lily Blossom Bloom, a “better” option to direct the possible adaption.
He also told Variety that he had yet to commit to the project despite his company, Wayfarer Studios, buying the rights for an “It Starts With Us” movie adaption.
“I haven’t even begun to think that far ahead. I’m trying to stay in the present as much as I can,” he told the outlet in July 2024.
Two separate camps
Baldoni walked the carpet during the movie’s premiere and posed only with his wife, Emily Fuxler.
Meanwhile, Lively posed with Hoover, Brandon Sklenar, who plays Atlas and Jenny Slate, who plays Alyssa.
She also posed with her husband and Hugh Jackman, who stars with Reynolds in “Deadpool & Wolverine.”
It was also reported that Lively and the cast watched the movie in one theater while Baldoni and his wife watched from another. Even when Hoover and Lively introduced the film before the screening, Baldoni was absent.
Absent Baldoni
Most notably, Baldoni promoted the movie and sat for interviews solo.
On the other hand, Lively did press tours with Sklenar, Isabela Ferrer, who plays a younger version of her character in the movie, and more co-stars.
Fans have also pointed their interviews suggested they were promoting two different movies as Baldoni spoke out about the film’s domestic violence theme, while Lively talked about the wardrobe and how abuse doesn’t “define” her character.
After days worth of backlash for “being tone deaf” and not speaking about the domestic violence her character experiences in the movie, Lively tried to fix things by sharing resources for abuse survivors in an August 2024 Instagram Story.
She also re-posted a BBC interview where she explained her character is more than just a “survivor” and a “victim.”
Although Lively did not address her rumored beef with Baldoni at the time, Slate went viral for completely sidestepping a question about working with Baldoni, who was juggling being the director and an actor in the film.
“What an intense job,” the comedian quipped to Deadline. “To have to do so many things.”
Social media shade
Many fans have noticed that most of Baldoni’s co-stars do not follow him back on Instagram — and neither does the series’s author, Hoover.
Hoover and Baldoni first connected in 2019 when the latter secured the movie rights to her book.
Reynolds reportedly blocked Baldoni on the social media platform months before the film’s premiere.
Throwback footage
After a social media user shared footage of Lively and Baldoni seemingly arguing on set in 2023, news broke on Aug. 13, 2024, that he hired veteran PR crisis manager Melissa Nathan.
TMZ claimed the following day that Lively, who had recently given birth to baby No. 4, believed her co-star fat-shamed her on set by asking his trainer how much she weighed and how to avoid injuring his back when picking her up.
The outlet also reported that she felt he lingered too long during one of their kissing scenes.
Breaking her silence
In December 2024, Lively filed a sexual harassment complaint against Baldoni and accused him of trying to “destroy” her reputation with an alleged smear campaign.
She claimed that there had previously been an “all hands on deck” meeting — with Reynolds also present — about Baldoni’s behavior.
At the time, it was allegedly requested that the director refrain from adding more sex scenes “outside the scope” of the pre-approved script, stop showing her “nude videos and images of women” and more.
Baldoni denied his co-star’s “shameful” allegations in a statement reading, “These claims are completely false, outrageous and intentionally salacious with an intent to publicly hurt and rehash a narrative in the media.”
He also hit back at claims that he had hired a crisis PR manager to engage in “social manipulation” against Lively.
His and Wayfarer Studios’ attorney, Bryan Freedman, told Page Six the hiring came as a result of Lively allegedly “threatening to not showing up to set, threatening to not promote the film, ultimately leading to its demise during release, if her demands were not met.”
Co-stars’ comments
Sklenar showed his support for Lively via Instagram Stories on Dec. 23, 2024, writing that his followers needed to “for the love of god read” her complaint.
Slate followed suit with a lengthy statement to Today the next day, which concluded with, “I commend my friend, I admire her bravery and I stand by her side.”
Hoover, for her part, made headlines for calling Lively “honest and kind” on social media.
The publicist plot thickens
Baldoni’s former publicist Stephanie Jones sued him — as well as his crisis PR manager, Melissa Nathan, and her former employee Jennifer Abel, among others — over an alleged breach of contract.
Jones claimed in her lawsuit that Abel and Nathan “coordinated with Baldoni and Wayfarer to implement an aggressive media smear campaign” against Lively that she allegedly “had no knowledge or involvement in” before “publicly pin[ning the] blame” on her.
She maintained the allegations after a source blasted them as “retaliatory.”
Making it official
Lively filed a formal lawsuit against Baldoni on Dec. 31, 2024, suing her co-star in New York federal court over lost wages and emotional distress.
She made the same allegations as she did in her initial complaint filed with the California Civil Rights Department.
In addition to Baldoni, Lively sued Nathan, Abel and Wayfarer Studios, which produced “It Ends with Us.”
Libel lawsuit
That same day, Baldoni — and nine other plaintiffs, including Nathan and Abel — took legal action, filing a $250 million libel lawsuit against the New York Times’ story about Lively’s sexual harassment complaint.
The filing claimed that “the Times story relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”
Lively’s rep insisted to Page Six at the time that “nothing in [that] lawsuit changes anything about the claims [she previously] advanced.”
Another lawsuit
On Jan. 16, 2025, Baldoni filed another lawsuit, but this time, against Lively, Reynolds and their publicist, Leslie Sloane. He sued them for $400 million for defamation and extortion.
The actor alleged in the complaint obtained by Page Six that tried to assert creative control in several aspects of the film, including the script and wardrobe.
He also alleged that Lively used her friendship with global superstar Taylor Swift to manipulate him.
Baldoni’s lawyers argued that their client “felt obliged to text Lively to say that he had liked her pages and hadn’t needed Reynolds and her megacelebrity friend to pressure him.”
“The message could not have been clearer. Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively’s ‘dragons,’ two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world.”
Baldoni also reiterated past claims that Reynolds yelled at him during an all-hands meetings and denied that his publicists conspired to ruin Lively’s reputation.
Raw footage revealed
After filing his suit, Baldoni began to release information that he thought might corroborate his case in the court of public opinion.
The actor and his legal team first leaked raw footage from an “It Ends With Us” scene in which he and Lively were cuddled up for a slow-motion dance sequence.
Before directors yelled “action” to kick off the shoot, the co-stars could be overheard talking about their respective spouses, and Lively even making a joke about the size of Baldoni’s nose.
Baldoni’s lawyer, Freedman, claimed the clip showed the pair treated each other with “mutual respect and professionalism,” debunking Lively’s sexual harassment claims.
However, Lively’s lawyers slammed the release of the clip and said “the video itself is damning.” They then filed a request for a gag order against Baldoni’s lawyer, which he called a “bullying” tactic.
An intimacy coordinator agreed with Lively’s team that the evidence showed the actress was clearly “uncomfortable” during the scene.
A voice note heard around the world
Baldoni’s team also dropped a nearly 7-minute voice note, in which the actor is overheard apologizing to Lively following an alleged dispute they had over edits she made to a rooftop scene.
“I want to start with an apology,” the actor is heard saying in the clip. “I for sure fell short and you worked really hard on that, and the way you framed it, and how that made you feel … I just wanted to say thank you for sharing that with me.”
Baldoni promised to not make Lively feel like other “f–head” directors in the past had done, saying, “I’m just still kind of blown away that this is the industry we’re in and that you’ve experienced that as a woman.”
He concluded, recognizing the time at which he was sending the voice note, “You probably have kids all over you, and a baby on your boob and you’re listening to me ramble.”
Reps for Lively did not immediately respond to the release of this audio.
Legal experts call Baldoni’s bluff
Baldoni sued Lively and Reynolds for $400 million, which is four times the couple’s reported combined net worth. However, several legal experts explained to Page Six with the massive amount is likely a “PR play.”
“It’s common to shoot for the moon. It’s for scare value and to get press attention,” family law attorney Raiford Dalton Palmer told us.
Neama Rahmani, president of Los Angeles-based West Coast Trial Lawyers, agreed, “Obviously, a high number in the lawsuit makes for great headlines, and this case is as much about Baldoni clearing his name and sending a message to Lively than actually getting money out of her.”
Entertainment lawyer Camron Dowlatshahi added that in order for Baldoni to actually walk away with that total sum in damages, he would have to prove he was “on his way to making a half billion dollars” before he was allegedly defamed and extorted.
Team Baldoni launches website
Baldoni made good on their word and released an entire website dedicated to the case in early February 2025.
The site featured his updated complaint and lawsuit, a168-page document detailing a timeline of events, never-before-seen text messages, emails and more, spanning from 2019 to 2024.
In the communications, Lively and Baldoni discussed rewrites of scenes, their meetings with intimacy coordinators and a supposed meeting with Swift, who the actress infamously referred to as one of her “dragons.”
He also included texts about how “f–king terrified” he was about saying the “wrong thing” to Lively about her character’s wardrobe, which received backlash from fans.
Ballooning budget
Speaking of clothes, Baldoni alleged that the film’s “wardrobe budget ballooned” by $430,000 to meet the actress’ demands.
“They had to reshop everything for Blake after creative changes, but it’s a lot of money,” an email from an alleged line producer read.
While they originally set a $185,000 budget for clothes, the unnamed employee claimed they spent $615,000 on Lively and Baldoni’s wardrobe alone.
In Baldoni’s amended complaint, he alleged that the wardrobe issue was just one of the ways Lively tried to take over his project.
“Ignoring the director’s vision for her character and disposing of the weeks of effort and creativity spent by the wardrobe team on shopping and carefully crafting her wardrobe, Lively sent hundreds of images to the Film’s costume designer, including into the late hours of the evening, depicting the style of wardrobe she wanted for her character,” the filing alleged.
When he approached her about the issue, she allegedly ignored him and suggested he was being “gaslit” by producers.
Jed Wallace enters the scene
Lively was sued by a Jed Wallace-led crisis PR firm in early February 2025.
Wallace alleged that the actress defamed him and his company, Street Relations Inc., when she named him as the architect behind Baldoni’s “smear campaign” in her original California Civil Rights complaint.
However, she did not name Wallace in the actual lawsuit filed in New York.
Wallace claimed the alleged mistake cost him “millions of dollars in reputational harm with a projected loss to his company that exceeds another million.” He is suing Lively for $7 million.
The actress’ legal team requested to depose Wallace in Texas so he and others could be added to their New York lawsuit against Baldoni.
Request to subpoena texts
In mid-February 2025, Lively sent out several subpoenas to Baldoni and Wallace’s cell carriers in a search for “receipts” in the case.
“Ms. Lively has initiated discovery that will expose the people, tactics, and methods that have worked to ‘destroy’ and ‘bury’ her reputation and family over the past year,” her attorneys said at the time.
In contrast, the “Five Feet Apart” director’s lawyer called Lively’s request “flagrantly overbroad.”
“They are asking for every single call, text, data log, and even real-time location information for the past 2.5 years, regardless of the sender, recipient, or subject matter,” he said in a statement.
“This massive fishing expedition demonstrates that they are desperately seeking any factual basis for their provably false claims. They will find none.”
A judge later ruled that Lively would not be able to subpoena all of Baldoni’s texts over the last two years, stating that it was “overly intrusive and disproportionate to the needs of the case.”
However, her request for some cell records revolving around those involved in the case was partially granted, with the judge starting that she “is permitted to use the tools of discovery to identify the contact information or telephone numbers for those individuals.”
Both Baldoni and Lively refused court mediation.
‘SNL 50’ controversy
Another layer of controversy was added to the mix after Lively and Reynolds stepped out for the “Saturday Night Live” 50th anniversary special, where the “Green Lantern” star made a joke about the legal battle.
When asked how he was doing during the live broadcast, Reynolds replied, “Great! Why, what have you heard?”
Some fans — and Hollywood insiders — questioned the couple for making light of the situation given the serious topics of sexual harassment, defamation and extortion.
More women added to the mix
In an amended complaint, Lively alleged that she wasn’t the only person Baldoni made “uncomfortable” on set.
The “Simple Favor” star alleged that at least two other women were willing to testify about the actions of Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath.
However, their names were left out of the complaint due to concerns over cyberbullying and retaliation.
Lively and one of the other women allegedly reported Baldoni’s behavior but nothing was done about it.
Baldoni’s ‘shocking’ behavior revealed
Lively also added unseen text messages to her complaint, in which she discussed the director’s alleged “shocking” behavior on set.
A May 2023 message Lively sent to a friend seemingly references Baldoni and Heath’s inappropriate conduct.
“It’s like HR nuts today. The both of them,” she wrote at the time. “I wasn’t expecting that turn. I mean it’s been present but today I came home and cried.”
In another text, Lively called Baldoni and Heath “creeps” before continuing, “Like keep your hormones to yourselves. This is not mine. I don’t want it. I don’t want you [sic] gaze or words or tongue or videos of your naked wife. Yeah. It’s shocking. Clowns.”
She also alleged that Baldoni asked “intrusive” questions about her and Reynolds’ sex life, furthering her claims of sexual harassment.
The mother of three claimed that the former podcast host once asked if they “climax simultaneously” during intercourse.
Lively alleged that Baldoni wanted her to “orgasm” on camera — despite agreeing to take the scene out.
Lively requests stronger PO
The actress asked the judge to grant her a stronger protective order in late February 2025 due to the sensationalized nature of the case.
In the proposed PO, her legal team requested to have certain discovery material categorized as “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” limiting what is made public given the nature of the case.
The letter noted that the case deals with “high-profile individuals, to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed.”
Specifically, Lively’s legal team also requested a protective order for their client’s private texts with her celebrity pals — which could cause “irreparable harm” if they “were to fall into wrong hands.”
“There are 100 million reasons for these parties to leak information because the PR value is greater than complying with the court’s orders.”
Lively’s initial request referenced the “vicious” backlash Lively has faced online as another reason for stronger protections, noting that she has “received violent, profane, sexist, and threatening communications.”
However, Baldoni’s legal team argued that Lively brought it to the public first by bringing her initial complaint to the New York Times. They also cited Reynolds’ “planned skit” at “SNL 50,” which put the case in front of “almost 15 million viewers.”
Lively scores a small win
Lively’s protective order was approved in March 2025, which meant Baldoni could not leak sensitive information to the public by law.
Evidence in their legal battle would be “confidential” and for “attorneys’ eyes only.”
There was a loophole, however, as the filing stated “the Court [was] unlikely to seal or otherwise afford confidential treatment” for documents cited during the trial.
Lively and Reynolds request to dismiss lawsuit
That same month, Lively requested to throw out Baldoni’s “abhorrent” countersuit altogether, calling it “vengeful and rambling.”
Her husband did the same.
Baldoni’s attorney called the couple “cowardly,” quipping that the legal battle was a “self-concocted disaster” Lively “initiated.”
Talk show time
Lively made a rare talk show appearance amid the ongoing drama to promote “Another Simple Favor,” alluding to the scandal while discussing her “intense year.”
“This year has been full of the highest highs and lowest lows of my life,” she told “Late Night With Seth Meyers” viewers in May 2025. “I see so many women around afraid to speak, especially now, afraid to share their experience.
“Fear is by design, it’s what keeps us silent,” she continued at the time. “But I also acknowledge that many people don’t have the opportunity to speak, so I do feel fortunate that I have been able to.”
Taylor Swift enters the chat
In May 2025, Swift was subpoenaed in Lively and Baldoni’s ongoing legal war.
The pop star’s rep hit back at this, telling Page Six, “Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film.
“She did not even see ‘It Ends With Us’ until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history,” the statement continued.
Judge tosses Baldoni’s lawsuit
On June 9, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman filed a motion to dismiss Baldoni’s lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds and Leslie Sloane, as well as his lawsuit against the “New York Times.”
Her lawyers gushed about the “total victory and complete vindication” in a statement to Page Six.
“This “$400 million” lawsuit was a sham,” the attorneys wrote. “The Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys’ fees, treble damages and punitive damages.”
However, Freeman told us, “Ms. Lively and her team’s predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. … We march forward.”
Baldoni’s subsequently majorly shifted their legal strategy to focus on the defense.
Deposition drama
When Lively was deposed at her attorney’s office in New York City in July 2025, Baldoni was present for a “face-to-face showdown.”
In a heavily-redacted transcript of the deposition, Lively hit back at her former co-star’s team’s alleged “smear campaign” against her.
“The press that you have done and the statements that you have made about me and my character have felt incredibly retaliatory,” she claimed at the time.
Isabela Ferrer enters the chat
In August 2025, Ferrer claimed Baldoni was “harassing” her for information after subpoenaing her — and allegedly making “transparent efforts to exert pressure on” her.
Baldoni’s team clapped back with a rebuttal pointing out that Lively was the first to issue Ferrer a summons.
“Ms. Lively should not be permitted to obtain discovery from Ms. Ferrer, while Ms. Ferrer and her counsel frustrate all effort by the Wayfarer Parties to obtain the discovery critical to the preparation of their defense,” they wrote, requesting that “none of the parties will use any communication to, from or concerning Ms. Ferrer, or any testimony from her.”
The harassment claims continue
In September 2025, an individual — whose name was redacted in court docs — accused Baldoni of “repeated, negative interactions” and “verbal abuse.”
The unidentified accuser claimed Baldoni “was not “permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences” and it was requested he “not be involved in marketing or public relations efforts.”
The person is expected to testify in Lively’s case.
End of an era … or is it?
Four months after Baldoni’s lawsuit was tossed out by a judge, the countersuit came to a dramatic end when the actor’s team declined to file an amended complaint by the deadline.
U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman officially ended the case in November 2025.
Baldoni’s legal team told Page Six that the director opted not to file an amended complaint so he could potentially proceed with an appeal at a later date.
Make it stop
After Lively claimed a whopping $161 million in damages in November due to Baldoni’s alleged actions, he requested the lawsuit be tossed.
Baldoni insisted on Nov. 13, 2025, that “no reasonable jury” would find him guilty.
He noted in his formal request that damages for lost profits must be proven with “reasonable certainty” and cannot be “speculative, possible or imaginary.”
His request came on the heels of Lively scoring a legal win against the PR firm tied to Justin Baldoni that sued her for defamation in Texas, with a judge ruling the court did not have the power to deal with the lawsuit.
The following month, Lively in court docs obtained by Page Six that she deserved her “day in court,” bashing Baldoni’s request as nothing more than his “latest effort to avoid accountability.”
Deposition details
In an October 2025 deposition obtained by Page Six on Dec. 4, 2025, Baldoni admitted to telling Lively he was circumcised in a personal conversation at the actress’ home about her then-unborn son.
When asked whether he has shared this detail with other co-stars over the years, Baldoni replied, “I don’t talk about my genitalia, so no.”
Other notable moments from the transcript included Lively claiming Hoover was “reluctant” to hire a male director, Baldoni accusing her of posing as a victim as part of the “Taylor Swift playbook” and more.
The ‘Taylor Swift playbook’
Also included in the October 2025 deposition were comments by Baldoni accusing Lively of playing the victim on set of “It Ends With Us” and using the “Taylor Swift playbook.”
Baldoni was asked during his deposition about a meeting where Lively detailed the conditions needed for her to return to set.
As a response to the “traumatizing” meeting, he wrote to a friend group that “[Lively] had the nuclear bomb.
“If she doesn’t promote the movie, she can leak that I’m a bad person or that she felt unsafe with me and all the stuff she has on me. Then she’s the victim. It’s the Taylor Swift playbook,” he said, referencing the singer’s reputation for “playing the victim” in her feuds.
Taking aim at A-list pals
Justin Baldoni attempted to expose Swift and more of Lively’s A-list pals in their messy legal war.
He filed an objection on Jan. 12, 2026, to Lively’s request to hide the identities of A-listers involved in their legal battle.
Lively, specifically, called her husband an “innocent third party” in her and Baldoni’s ongoing proceedings, according to docs obtained by TMZ.
The actor’s lawyers claimed that Lively’s attempt to seal records is meant to save the public images of her A-list friends, whom she allegedly “recruited as advocates on her behalf against the Wayfarer Parties in her attempt to take over the film.”
They requested the majority of Lively’s sealing requests be rejected, pointing out that the identities of potential witnesses — which have included Swift, Hugh Jackman, Emily Blunt and America Ferrera — are already public.
Jameela Jamil enters the chat
Jameela Jamil branded Lively a “suicide bomber” and a “villain” in private texts to Baldoni’s publicist, Jennifer Abel, in August 2024.
The “Good Place” alum and PR strategist were reacting to a TikTok video about Lively’s allegedly “tone-deaf” promotion of the film, according to unsealed court docs obtained by the Daily Mail.
“I want to officially incorporate nightmare c–t and demon c–t into my vocabulary; UNBELIEVABLE; She’s doing this to herself,” Abel texted Jamil, who is also her client, about Lively.
Jamil replied, “She’s a suicide bomber at this point.”
As their conversation continued, Jamil texted, “I’ve never seen such a bizarre villain act before. She’s Over over.”
Jamil subsequently defended her harsh labels of Lively and insisted she is still a feminist.
Voice memos unsealed
A friendly, private voice memo from Lively to Baldoni about the “It Ends With Us” production schedule in February 2023, was unsealed.
“I hope you’re so well,” the actress began in the court exhibit, obtained by People on Jan. 29, 2026. “I just wanted to connect to put something on your radar.”
Lively went on to explain that she was speaking to Baldoni “as a friend more than anything” over how “stressed” she felt about filming their movie and “Proxy” back to back after welcoming son Olin.
Another voice note — this time from Baldoni to Lively — was leaked on Feb. 2, 2026, where he calls his co-star beautiful.
“Hey Blake, I hope the fitting was super successful,” he said around 2023. “Thank you for sending those pictures, it was really cool.”
“I was in the department head meeting, and they came through, and I was waiting for them to load, and I legit got the chills when I saw it,” Baldoni added. “You look beautiful. It’s going to work so well.”
No end in sight
The archenemies arrived at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Feb. 11, 2026, for a final chance at resolving their legal battle ahead of their May 2026 trial.
Bizarrely, they sported strikingly similar pink and green ensembles for the court-ordered settlement conference.
Lively arrived solo, while Baldoni arrived with his wife at his side.
Justin and Lively’s closed-door hearing was overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave and marked the first time the pair aced off in court since their legal battle began.
However, their settlement talks were unsuccessful.
Sexual harassment claims dismissed
In a court ruling on April 2, 2026, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 out of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit against Baldoni, including her sexual harassment claims.
However, three of her claims can proceed — breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting in retaliation.
The actress reacted to the big loss in a statement.
“This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,” Sigrid McCawley, a member of Lively’s legal team, told Page Six in a statement.
McCawley added that for Lively, “the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted,” and said the “Gossip Girl” alum “looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”
Attorneys for Baldoni also spoke out about the ruling.
“We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,” Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach told Page Six in a statement.
“These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.”
On Wednesday, in an effort to calm public concerns, leaders from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom delivered nationally broadcast addresses. The escalating conflict in the Middle East is significantly disrupting global energy markets, marking the most severe disturbance in recent years.
In an uncommon display of coordinated timing, Anthony Albanese, Donald Trump, and Keir Starmer each took to the airwaves to discuss how the ongoing war is exerting immediate economic pressure domestically. They addressed issues ranging from fuel prices to supply chain disruptions while outlining their respective government’s strategies.
While they all acknowledged the same fundamental shock to the system, their explanations of the cause and their proposed solutions varied considerably.
Albanese focused on domestic relief and energy conservation, Trump emphasized an expanding military effort, and Starmer advocated for enhanced energy security and international collaboration.
A shared burden
As rising costs begin to impact daily life, Albanese highlighted cost-of-living concerns in his speech, informing Australians that the conflict had caused “the biggest spike in petrol and diesel prices in history.” He also cautioned that these “economic shocks … will be with us for months.”
That message followed a day of heightened anticipation, after the nationally televised address — a format rarely used outside major crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic — was announced hours in advance, fuelling speculation about potential fuel rationing or deeper involvement in the conflict.
Instead, Albanese spoke mainly of the current domestic fallout, emphasising that while “Australia is not an active participant in this war”, households were already feeling the impact, pointing to rising costs “at the servo and at the supermarket”, with “farmers and truckies, small businesses and families” under acute pressure.
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes across Iran on February 28, Australia backed the operation as necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation. It has since called for de-escalation.
Albanese’s government has also acknowledged that three Royal Australian Navy personnel were aboard a US submarine involved in sinking the Iranian warship IRIS Dena in March, stating they were on training placements and did not participate in the offensive action.
The federal response has focused on immediate relief, with Albanese reiterating it had cut the fuel excise in half — reducing the tax on every litre of petrol by 26 cents — and cut the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge to zero for three months, alongside efforts to secure supply.
He pointed to a four-stage fuel security framework, indicating Australia remains in the second phase focused on voluntary conservation rather than mandatory restrictions.
Unlike Donald Trump, who foregrounded military outcomes, Albanese urged public cooperation, asking Australians to “not take more fuel than you need” and, where possible, to “switch to catching the train or bus or tram to work”.
He tempered expectations: “No government can promise to eliminate the pressures that this war is causing,” before closing on collective action, saying Australia would respond “the Australian way” by “working together — and looking after each other”.
There were no new measures announced, instead a telling reveal that “if the global situation gets worse … we can co-ordinate the next steps together.”
The address’ focus on incremental measures and shared responsibility drew criticism from the Opposition and online meme creators, with some suggesting it lacked urgency and could have been delivered “as an email”.
War footing and mixed signals
Trump used his lengthier, 20-minute prime-time address to defend a month-long military campaign, declaring US forces had delivered “swift, decisive, overwhelming victories” and asserting: “Tonight, Iran’s Navy is gone. Their Air Force is in ruins,” presenting the conflict as near-total strategic success.
He said the US had “completely decimated” Iran’s militarily and was “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly”, projecting an end within weeks while continuing to justify the operation as essential to prevent a nuclear threat.
Much of his Wednesday address echoed his recent public messaging, restating familiar claims and threats made particularly on Truth Social, including a warning that “if there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard”.
At the same time, the speech left key questions lingering, including what would constitute victory and how or when the conflict would end, with Trump offering no clear pathway beyond saying objectives were “nearing completion”.
Unlike Albanese, Trump gave limited attention to domestic cost pressures, acknowledging “many Americans have been concerned … about gasoline prices” but describing the increase as only “short term” and attributing it entirely to Iranian actions.
He instead stressed US energy independence, saying America had “plenty of gas” and “does not need” Middle Eastern oil, while urging countries reliant on Gulf supply to “take the lead” in securing shipping routes, telling them to “go to the Strait and just take it”.
Iran has rejected that framing, with its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard this week stating the Strait of Hormuz was “firmly and decisively under the control” of its forces and warning it “will not be opened to the enemies of this nation through the ridiculous spectacle by the president of the United States”.
The address combined assertions of military success with continued threats and competing claims over control of the conflict’s central chokepoint, offering no firm timeline for an end to hostilities while maintaining that the United States held “all the cards”.
Diplomacy, security and economic reset
Starmer framed the war as both an immediate economic challenge and a longer-term test of national resilience, warning it would “affect the future of our country” while insisting Britain was “well-placed to weather it”.
He mirrored Albanese in distancing Britain from direct involvement, stating: “this is not our war. We will not be drawn into the conflict” but placed greater emphasis on coordinated international action to stabilise energy flows.
Starmer said the UK had brought together 35 nations to push for maritime security and would assess “all viable diplomatic and political measures” to restore “freedom of navigation” and reopen critical trade routes.
Domestically, he outlined targeted support, including cutting energy bills by over £100 ($192) per household, extending fuel duty cuts and allocating funds to households exposed to heating oil price rises, while acknowledging concerns at the petrol bowser and over energy bills.
Unlike Albanese’s narrower focus on immediate relief, Starmer embedded these measures in a broader reform agenda, arguing “this time will be different” and linking the crisis to energy independence, investment in “clean British energy” and closer cooperation with European partners.
He reinforced that argument with a personal anecdote, recalling that in the 1970s his “family could not pay every bill”, appearing to position the current shock touching millions as part of a longer economic cycle.
How long it lasts, and how the AUKUS leaders will continue to respond, remains unclear.
In a recent enforcement operation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced the arrest of multiple individuals residing illegally in the United States, all of whom were convicted of serious crimes such as arson, drug trafficking, and burglary. This initiative is part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to bolster public safety nationwide.
ICE reported that nearly 70% of those apprehended had previous charges or convictions in the United States, emphasizing the agency’s commitment to targeting individuals who pose threats to community safety. Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis highlighted the importance of these actions, stating, “Yesterday, the men and women of ICE continued to make American communities safer by arresting arsonists, assailants, drug dealers, and other criminal illegal aliens. Under President Donald Trump, if you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will find you and we will arrest you.”
The agency detailed the arrests, showcasing individuals involved in significant criminal activities. Among those apprehended were Elias Torres-Collins, Juan David Fernandez-Garcia, and Juan Flores-Perez, as well as Sophath Phuong and Juan Reyes-Gonzalez, whose photos were released by the Department of Homeland Security. Each of these individuals was involved in grave offenses that prompted the agency’s swift action.
These recent developments underscore ICE’s dedication to removing individuals who have been involved in criminal activities from U.S. communities, thereby aiming to enhance the safety and security of American citizens. As ICE continues its enforcement operations, the agency remains focused on its mission to protect public safety by apprehending those who disregard U.S. laws.
ICE highlighted several recent arrests involving individuals convicted of serious offenses.
Among them was Elias Torres-Collins, a Honduran national convicted of arson in Tarrant County, Texas.
ICE and DHS agents make an arrest. (Mostafa Bassim/Getty Images)(Mostafa Bassim/Getty Images)
In a separate case, Juan David Fernandez-Garcia, a Colombian national, was arrested after being convicted of burglary with assault in Miami, Florida.
Authorities also arrested Juan Flores-Perez, a Mexican national convicted in federal court in the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess 500 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
ICE agents deploy measures in Portland, Ore., in February 2026.(Sean Bascom/Getty Images)
In the Northeast, Sophath Phuong, a Cambodian national, was taken into custody after being convicted in Philadelphia of burglary, possessing instruments of crime and criminal conspiracy.
Juan Reyes-Gonzalez, a Colombian national, was also arrested following a burglary conviction in Carmel, New York.
ICE did not provide a total number of arrests tied to the announcement but said the cases reflect broader enforcement priorities targeting individuals with criminal records.
Greg Wehner is a breaking news reporter for Fox News Digital.
Story tips and ideas can be sent to Greg.Wehner@Fox.com and on Twitter @GregWehner.
Two decades have passed since Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal injury captured the spotlight ahead of England’s 2006 World Cup campaign in Germany. The anticipation surrounding his recovery was palpable, with tense negotiations between club and country. Ultimately, Rooney was deemed fit to play—a decision that did little to alleviate Sir Alex Ferguson’s frustrations—as he joined Sven Goran Eriksson’s squad. Despite his efforts, England’s journey was cut short in the quarter-finals against Portugal, highlighted by Rooney’s infamous red card for a foul on Ricardo Carvalho in Gelsenkirchen.
Rumors swirled that the Rooney incident played a pivotal role in Ferguson’s decision to dismiss Manchester United’s club doctor, Mike Stone, just before the World Cup. But was this truly the case? For the first time, Dr. Stone shares the details of his fateful meeting with Ferguson at Carrington, where he was abruptly let go.
This revelation sheds light on the challenges faced by medical professionals in elite sports environments, reminiscent of Eva Caneiro’s high-profile disagreement with Jose Mourinho at Chelsea. The narrative raises important questions about the security and autonomy of doctors working under intense pressure in top-tier sports.
Reflecting on a day in late 2005, Dr. Stone recounts a seemingly casual encounter in the manager’s office. As he prepared to leave, Ferguson offhandedly remarked, “Oh and you should stop working at that institute.” Little did he know, this comment foreshadowed the end of his tenure at Manchester United.
Dr Mike Stone was Manchester United’s first full-time club doctor, and was there for the glory years – including being sprayed with champagne by Peter Schmeichel
Stone (third right) fell out with Ferguson over his work at the English Institute of Sport
One day towards the end of 2005, I was in the manager’s office for some other reason and as I was leaving he said in an off-hand manner: ‘Oh and you should stop working at that institute.’
I left the office without saying anything. I had been rather taken aback. Over the next couple of days I thought about this and rather naively came to the conclusion that as I was an employee of the club and not the manager, I would talk again to United’s chief executive David Gill. This I did and he reiterated that he could see the potential benefits to the club of me being exposed to ideas from lots of other sports and said that provided I kept a low profile and it didn’t interfere with club duties, I could continue.
Carlos Queiroz had rejoined the club as the assistant manager in 2004 and it would be fair to say that I did not get on well with him. The senior physiotherapist, Rob Swire, had a meeting with Carlos each morning to discuss who was available for training and those for whom training should be modified.
I was aware of these issues as a result of regular discussions with the physiotherapists and so did not see the point of attending these meetings. What did concern me was the fact that virtually all communication Carlos had with me was through Rob. Was I an important member of the team? Or someone who could be replaced at a moment’s notice regardless of my contract?
I had always got on with all the coaching staff at United and the fact that there was now a coach in post who I definitely did not get on with probably influenced my desire to continue at the English Institute for Sport. I had the club’s permission to continue so I did not discuss it further with the manager.
In retrospect, I definitely should have done. Knowing the influence the manager had at United, it should have registered with me that being employed by the club and not the manager would make absolutely no difference to him.
I continued doing my weekly session at the English Institute of Sport and at the end of the 2005-06 season, I was in my office making certain everything was up to date before going on holiday.
My phone went, it was the manager who asked if I could come to his office. He asked me to sit down, sat down opposite me and said: ‘You have still been working at that institute, I told you not to, I can’t have my staff disobeying my orders. I want you to clear your desk immediately and leave. Sort out with Mr Merrett (the club secretary) whether you are due anything.’
Stone tends to Park Ji-sung’s head wound on tour in Japan in 2005
‘I can’t have my staff disobeying my orders. I want you to clear your desk immediately and leave’
Carlos Queiroz (right) was the first coach I did not get on with at United, and his influence was growing
At that, he stood up and went back to sit behind his desk. I started to say something, and he said: ‘There is nothing to say, just leave.’
I walked back to my office in a state of shock. Before I even managed to sit down Wayne Rooney, who was recovering from his metatarsal fracture, came in asking for something. He was the first person to know I had just been sacked.
During the six-and-a-half years I worked full-time at the club I had been called on to provide individual medical advice for the manager in many ways, including visiting his home one Christmas morning to attend to one of his grandchildren. No mention was made of any of this. No ‘thank you for your work over the last 10 years’, no ‘thank you for your advice and support’, just: ‘I have been disobeyed, get out.’
I am fully aware of a number of other doctors working in elite sport who have been treated in a similar way. I would advise that any doctor taking up a position in elite sport makes certain they are employed by the club, that the terms and conditions of their employment have been agreed and are not left open ended. It will not guarantee job security, but it will help. The days of the all-powerful manager seem to have come to an end.
The statement eventually issued by the club was that there had been ‘a difference over a non-football and non-clinical issue as a result of which Dr Stone felt it was in the best interests of himself and the club for him to leave’. I had agreed that statement but I now wish I had insisted on the specific reason. It wouldn’t have made much difference but it would have made me feel better.
Following my dismissal, my eldest step-daughter Eloise sent this email to the club: ‘Those who matter know the truth as to why you sacked Dr Stone, Mr Ferguson. The Doc didn’t leave because he felt it was in “his and the club’s best interests” as your well-oiled press machine claimed earlier on the official Manchester United website – you sacked him. Not only have you taken away his job, you’ve taken away his passion for the club he’s followed all of his life and you’ve left him devastated.
‘You speak of loyalty to yourself and the club, don’t make me laugh. Loyalty is supporting you, your family and the staff and players at Manchester United over the last ten years. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself and judging by the support shown by players, staff, medical professionals and even fans from around the world over the last 24 hours, I’m not the only one who thinks so.’
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I was and still am very proud of her.
During six-and-a-half years at the club I had provided medical advice for Sir Alex in many ways, including visiting his home one Christmas morning to attend to one of his grandchildren
I had agreed my leaving statement but I now wish I had insisted on the specific reason. It wouldn’t have made much difference but it would have made me feel better
There was a great deal of speculation in the press that the reason I had been sacked was because of disagreements about Wayne’s fractured metatarsal. But this isn’t true
There was a great deal of speculation in the press that the reason I had been sacked was because of disagreements about Wayne’s fractured metatarsal. But this was a traumatic injury that had happened at the end of April in a game against Chelsea, weeks before the 2006 World Cup, not an overuse injury that had brought much notoriety to the metatarsal fracture.
He was making an excellent recovery and, in my opinion, should have been available for at least the knockout stages of the World Cup. In the days before scans it was the type of fracture that could easily have been missed on a simple X-ray.
At no time was my opinion on Wayne’s fitness for the World Cup mentioned as a cause for my sacking, apart from by the press. I do wonder though whether it may have contributed.
It was very surprising to find myself for a few days in the eye of the storm. Journalists ringing the doorbell and wanting my side of the story, offering to help write a book. I believe that when I opened the door to one of them dressed in my dressing gown I was likened to Hercule Poirot in an article that appeared the following day.
I received a great many phone calls and letters from both players, staff and supporters saying that they were very sorry to see me go. Occasional phone calls from ex-players asking for medical advice many years after I had left were always very much appreciated and I was very pleased to help.
I took appropriate legal advice, signed the compromise agreement and left the club. Diane Law, the press officer, and Kath Phipps, the long-serving receptionist, could have verified that there were tears in my eyes the last time I left Carrington.
When Becks got the boot
The worst injury I had to deal with while at United was the fracture dislocation of the ankle suffered by Alan Smith while playing at Anfield in 2006. His foot was pointing at 90 degrees to where it should have been and I remember Alan saying to me: ‘Why the f*** is my foot pointing to Hong Kong?’
Before trying to reduce the dislocation he was given analgesia, the fracture was immobilised, he was placed on the stretcher and we took him off the pitch. When we got him into the medical room, I could remove his boot and sock. Occasionally with these injuries the blood supply to the foot can be obstructed, but thankfully in Alan’s case his foot pulses were easily felt.
The worst injury I had to deal with while at United was the fracture dislocation of the ankle suffered by Alan Smith while playing at Anfield in 2006
The foot would not easily realign, so as the circulation was intact we took him to hospital without further attempts at realignment. As the injury had happened near the end of the match the police wanted us to wait until the crowds had dispersed. I declined this offer and said we should leave immediately.
Apart from the ambulance being sprayed with beer and having a few pint pots thrown at it while passing a pub close to the ground we made it to the hospital. The foot was realigned without problem and we returned to Manchester for his definitive treatment.
But one of the most minor injuries that I had to treat caused the most publicity. It was the infamous boot incident.
Tempers often flare in the dressing room after a poor result, and on this occasion Sir Alex was having a go at David Beckham after a 2-0 home FA Cup defeat by Arsenal. The manager kicked out at a boot (I imagine expecting it to fly across the floor) but instead it accidentally struck Becks just above his left eye. Little damage was done and he left the ground without any dressing over the small abrasion.
When he had got home I received a phone call from David’s wife Victoria saying the abrasion was still bleeding and would I please have another look. I went round to his house and closed the superficial damage with a couple of Steri-Strips.
Never have two Steri-Strips been photographed so avidly. The injury healed without problem.
Never have two Steri-Strips been photographed so avidly than when Sir Alex accidentally kicked a boot at David Beckham
Rio’s missed drugs test
‘To Da Doc, how the bloody hell did I forget!’ Rio Ferdinand wrote this on the front page of his autobiography when he kindly sent me a copy in November 2006, two years after the ban that cost him a place at Euro 2004.
I have no idea of the answer. It seemed a routine unannounced drug test – the testers arrived as usual at the training ground and Rio was one of the names picked. He came and signed the forms but went back to the changing room to have his shower.
He was reminded by me on a number of occasions not to forget his test. I probably should have told the security guards on the gate at Carrington not to let Rio leave without contacting me but I didn’t. I had no reason to believe he would miss his test. He did.
I tried to contact him by phone and when he eventually phoned me from Manchester the drug testers had just given up hope and left. They had waited around for almost two hours from the end of training. A further test was arranged a day or two later which he passed.
I had been asked by a lawyer to take him through exactly what happened, which I did, and the next I knew was that the club had requested a formal hearing with the FA, at the then-Reebok Stadium in Bolton.
The bare facts of the case were that Rio had missed his test. I was a witness at the hearing and brought up the point that he had not been chaperoned, but as at the time this was not compulsory within the regulations, I don’t think it was of much help. At times I almost felt that I was on trial.
I probably should have told the security guards on the gate at Carrington not to let Rio leave without contacting me but I didn’t. I had no reason to believe he would miss his test
In the event Rio was banned from football for eight months and fined £50,000. I wondered at the time, and still do today, what would have happened if the club had just accepted the facts, provided all the supporting evidence and character references they could muster.
Would the punishment have been as severe?
Ruud awakening
Ruud van Nistelrooy first arrived from PSV Eindhoven for a United medical in 2000 with a history of a recent injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) of his knee. Because of this, full examination of the knee was somewhat difficult but both United’s club surgeon Jonathan Noble and myself felt the knee was more unstable than would have been expected with just damage to the MCL.
An MRI scan was arranged and this suggested to the radiologist that Ruud’s anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) had also ruptured. The transfer was put on hold and I contacted the PSV doctor. He confirmed that the scan done in the Netherlands had been reported as only showing MCL damage and without hesitation agreed to bring these scans to Manchester for further discussion.
The difference of opinion persisted and following a number of discussions with the chief executive, members of the board and Ruud’s representatives, the transfer did not go ahead. There were comments in the press about Ruud refusing to have an arthroscopy. This was correct and in his situation I would not have had an arthroscopy either.
The advice he was being given by the PSV medical staff was that he had only damaged the MCL. That is what they believed and they did not recommend in their eyes an unnecessary operation. The only way to be 100 per cent sure of whether his cruciate was ruptured or not was to have an arthroscopy.
Ruud van Nistelrooy first arrived at United in 2000 for a medical, with a knee that I thought required further inspection
It took a year, but eventually Ferguson got the deal done for the Dutch poacher – and 150 United goals soon followed
Ruud went back to the Netherlands and within a week, during a rehabilitation training session, his knee gave way. PSV maintain that this was when his cruciate ruptured, but I think it was an incident waiting to happen because he had already ruptured it.
No matter who was right, his knee was successfully repaired. He returned to Manchester the following year and I drove him to Jonathan Noble’s house for the final examination to complete the medical.
I don’t think I have driven a more happy and relieved player back to Old Trafford to complete the formalities of his transfer. The rest is history.
Set in Stone is published by Empire Publications and on sale now at www.empire-uk.com and
Jana Duggar has broken her silence following her brother Joseph Duggar’s recent arrest.
“We are deeply saddened and heartbroken by the situation involving my brother, Joseph,” Jana, age 36, expressed on her Instagram Story this Thursday, April 2. “This news came as a shock to us, and we were unaware of it until it became public.”
The former Counting On personality added, “Our thoughts are with the child who has suffered — this is an egregious and unacceptable act. We continue to pray for the victim and for justice to prevail.”
Us Weekly reported on March 18 that Joseph, 31, was taken into custody in Arkansas following allegations of abuse involving a 14-year-old girl, who was 9 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
Meanwhile, Josh Duggar has also spoken out while incarcerated, following Joseph’s arrest for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. “Josh Duggar is not informed of the specifics of the accusations against Joseph. However, he is aware of the media attention any incident involving his family generates,” stated Josh’s attorney.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including lewd and lascivious behavior involving molestation of a victim less than 12 years old and lewd and lascivious behavior conducted by a person 18 years or older.
Joseph was later released from a Florida jail on Tuesday, March 31, after posting $600,000 bail.
Jana isn’t the first family member to speak out about Joseph’s legal drama. Jill Duggar previously released a statement on her family blog about her brother’s arrest.
Jana DuggarCourtesy of Jana Duggar
“We were shocked yesterday evening to learn of Jill’s brother (Joseph Duggar’s) arrest,” the March 19 post began. “We first learned of anything related to his charges yesterday via a text from a friend who messaged us about the recent media reports of Joseph’s arrest and his alleged confession to molesting a juvenile female in 2020.”
Jill, 34, explained that she and her husband Derick Dillard are “shocked and heartbroken” over the allegations.
“We strongly condemn abuse. We support the rule of law and hope that justice will be achieved,” she continued. “Our hearts go out to the innocent juvenile victim of this unspeakable crime and her family. We pray God gives her strength, comfort and hope, and that she is able to get all the help and support she needs and deserves in the days ahead.”
As for Joseph’s parents, both Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar waited nearly two weeks before they commented on the case.
“Jim Bob and Michelle are heartbroken over this entire situation,” a spokesperson for the Duggar family told Us in a statement on March 30. “Right now, they are focused on loving their family and helping Kendra and her children during this difficult time. They are praying for the victim. They ask for privacy and appreciate the kind words and prayers offered by so many.”
Jim Bob Duggar appears to be hoping for the best but preparing for the worst when it comes to his son Joseph Duggar’s legal troubles. “Joseph, I’m so sorry for what you are going through. Mom & I love you very much!” Jim Bob, 60, wrote in an email to his son, according to jail […]
Joseph’s wife, Kendra Duggar, was also arrested on March 20 for an unrelated matter. She and Joseph — who share four children — are facing charges of endangering the welfare of a minor and false imprisonment. (A spokesperson for the Duggar family previously told Us in a statement, “[Kendra’s] is a misdemeanor charge totally unrelated to the Florida case.”
While it’s unclear where Joseph is after being released from jail on bond, his attorney told Us on March 31 that the former 19 Kids and Counting star was flying out of Panama City Beach airport with his father.
If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673). If you or someone you know is experiencing child abuse, call or text Child Help Hotline at 1-800-422-4453.
FILE – Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks to reporters as President Donald Trump listens, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).
A New York City judge issued a scathing critique of an immigration lawyer’s legal performance in a rare decision handed down on Wednesday.
The three-page ruling swiftly dismissed a misguided attempt to secure habeas corpus relief and other urgent measures for three petitioners. This case reflects a broader trend of increasing similar filings in U.S. courts since the summer of 2025.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, appointed during Donald Trump’s first presidency, noted that the same day the petition was submitted, the lawyer involved “filed a letter clarifying that the Petition was based on a fundamental error of fact.”
This case arises amid intensified efforts by the Trump administration to hold certain immigrants indefinitely. This follows a shift in the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Over the past nine months, a series of lawsuits in district courts have examined the relationship between two INA statutes that define the government’s detention powers. Judges have frequently revisited these statutes by referencing a 2018 Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito.
Essentially, the government argues that ICE possesses the authority to enforce mandatory detention of immigrants under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which pertains to “aliens seeking entry into the United States.”
Conversely, advocates for immigrants — as well as most judges who have ruled on the matter — have turned to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which applies to “aliens already present in the United States.”
Here, however, the matter did not get nearly that far — but Vyskocil did take note of the deluge in such cases.
In the order, the judge says the case “usurp[ed] the attention and displace[d] the calendar” of the court “as the wave of habeas corpus petitions filed in the immigration context has done for months.”
Aside from the habeas relief, the petitioners asked for mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The petitioners’ attorney also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
To what extent any other requests were extraneous — or germane to the facts — was not immediately clear. The court merely notes the habeas bid was not at all supported by the facts — because it was not even necessary in the first place.
The judge recites and restates the original petition to explain that “the only basis upon which she seeks a writ of habeas corpus is” the “abrupt increase” of “restraints” on one of the petitioners’ liberty “represented by” the imposition of “an ankle monitor.”
But the petitioner was not placed on an ankle monitor.
“Astonishingly, however, the letter filed by Petitioner’s counsel clarifies that ‘[t]he Petitioner has never been under an ankle monitoring,’” the order reads. “By way of clarification, counsel explains that ‘[t]hat incorrect fact was inadvertently included in the petition due to confusion with other cases in the office involving ankle monitoring.”
The judge was none too pleased with that excuse.
“This explanation is unacceptable,” the order continues. “The Court does appreciate that counsel promptly notified the Court of the error. But, beyond exposing himself to the possibility of sanctions … counsel’s filings may also have exposed his client to criminal liability.”
In the filing, the attorney evidently credited their client with saying: “ICE has now placed me on an ankle monitor.”
Vyskocil then chides the lawyer for their mistakes.
“Petitioners like those represented in this action are human beings, whose interests are not served by cut-and-paste lawyering,” the order goes on.
The court notes that the mistakes were plentiful — chastising the attorney for their efforts, so far, to try to salvage the case as it stands.
From the order, at length:
As counsel surely recognizes, no part of the Petition or TRO Application can be ruled upon—or even responded to—prior to amendment. Across those two submissions, the nonexistent “ankle monitor” is mentioned nearly forty times. Merely “strik[ing]” those references, or “withdraw[ing] the Petitioners’ declaration,” will not suffice.
In essence, the court has rejected all the filings so far — but will give the attorney another chance to refile them starting from scratch.
“Accordingly, the Petition and TRO Application are denied without prejudice to re-filing after amendment,” the order concludes. “Should Petitioners wish to file amended papers, the Government’s response thereto shall be due within one week.”
French President Emmanuel Macron’s increasingly tested relationship with US counterpart Donald Trump has taken another blow as the European leader issued a stern rebuke over the Strait of Hormuz.
French President Emmanuel Macron recently expressed his disapproval of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks at a private gathering, where Trump reportedly mocked Macron’s relationship with his wife, Brigitte.
In recent statements, Trump suggested that the United States would not take responsibility for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. This strategic oil shipping route has been essentially blocked by Iran following recent tensions involving Israel and the United States.
The relationship between Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump has soured. (AP)
During a presidential address this week, Trump advised NATO allies to take control of the Strait. “Go to the Strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves,” he urged. He emphasized that while the U.S. would offer support, it was time for other nations to lead the efforts in safeguarding the vital oil supplies on which they heavily rely.
Trump also mentioned that “the hard part” of the situation had been addressed, although challenges remain as Iran retains the capability to target neighboring Gulf states, and shipping routes are still obstructed.
He also previously said “the hard part” had been done, though Iran still has the capacity to strike neighbouring Gulf states and shipping remains bottlenecked and blocked.
In response, Macron, who is on a presidential tour boosting relations in eastern Asia, said that using force to open the strait was “unrealistic”.
He also appeared to rebuke Trump’s inconsistencies on Iran, saying, “When we want to be serious, we don’t say the opposite of what we said the day before”.
Trump is known to be angry at European allies for not joining the US’s attack on Iran, although the US did not discuss the campaign with any of them.
Macron and his wife Brigitte in South Korea. (Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)
Some nations, including Spain and Italy, have refused to allow their air bases to be used by US aircraft involved in the war.
France has sent troops to the Middle East, but as a defensive gesture to help protect allies there.
Brigitte Macron dragged into fray
While in South Korea, Macron was also asked about comments Trump had reportedly made during a speech at a private event yesterday.
“I called up France, Macron, whose wife treats him extremely badly, (he is) still recovering from the right to the jaw,” Trump said.
He was likely referring to a video from last year which appeared to show Brigitte Macron shoving her husband in the face while disembarking a plane.
Emmanuel Macron dismisses viral video of shove from wife Brigitte. (Reuters via CNN)
President Macron later said the couple had been joking.
Asked about Trump’s new comments, Macron said they “weren’t elegant, and they weren’t up to par” but otherwise dismissed them as unworthy of attention.
NEVER MISS A STORY:Get your breaking news and exclusive stories first by following us across all platforms.
America’s drinking patterns are diverging, with clear distinctions emerging across generational lines.
Amidst discussions about a potential decline in the alcohol industry, a more nuanced picture emerges: while younger generations are cutting back on alcohol, older generations are consuming more.
Despite a decrease in overall drinking, the U.S. alcohol market remains robust, generating billions in revenue and sustaining over four million jobs.
The nation’s alcohol consumption recently hit its lowest point since record-keeping began in 1939, largely due to Gen Z’s shift towards healthier lifestyles.
Some in this younger cohort are adopting ‘nonna maxxing,’ a lifestyle trend that values early bedtimes, home-cooked meals, and moderation over excessive drinking.
Trends like ‘zebra striping’ – alternating alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks – are gaining traction, allowing people to stay social while cutting consumption.
Another shift is to day caps from nightcaps. A 2026 survey found 34 percent of legal-age Gen Z drinkers now prefer daytime drinking over late nights – protecting sleep, workouts and morning routines.
Gen Z consumers, such as Daniella Sansotta (pictured) are embracing ‘nonna maxxing’ – a lifestyle trend centred on slower, more mindful living inspired by the habits of an Italian grandmother
Gen Z consumers are turning away from drinking in favour of more health-conscious choices
Heineken has said it will cut up to 6,000 jobs globally as a result of changing tastes
Julian Braithwaite, CEO of IARD, said: ‘Moderation has gone mainstream.
‘What we’re seeing is not a decline in social drinking, but a shift toward more intentional, balanced consumption, where people are choosing when and how alcohol fits into their lives.’
Savvy bar owners and brands are meeting this trend head-on with recent launches like Absolut Tabasco, a brunch-focused vodka, and Malibu Pink, a guava-infused spirit that gives off afternoon vibes.
Bars are opening earlier, extending happy hours and expanding food and low- and no-alcohol options.
Last month, Heineken unveiled a beer with zero alcohol, zero sugar and zero calories – aimed squarely at younger, health-conscious drinkers.
The Dutch brewer pioneered the US non-alcoholic beer boom with Heineken 0.0 in 2019, which was booze-free but still had sugar and calories.
Heineken 0.0 Ultimate goes a step further and highlights how far the market is shifting.
Non-alcoholic beer has surged in recent years, with US sales rising 159 percent between 2021 and 2025, as demand for lighter options grows.
Heineken released its ‘great tasting’ alcohol-free brew, complete with zero calories and zero sugar
‘The market believes there has been a structural change,’ said Barclays analyst Laurence Whyatt.
Neighborhood bars and local venues are seeing renewed interest, particularly among younger consumers.
They are looking for cheaper, more relaxed alternatives to expensive nights out – that involve taxis, entry fees and eye-watering prices for cocktails.
More than half of Americans now consider themselves regulars at a local bar or restaurant, according to OpenTable.
But at the same time, drinking among older Americans has climbed steadily over the past two decades.
Nearly 60 percent of adults aged 55 and over now drink – up from around half in previous decades – with those over 65 now drinking at higher rates than the national average.
In Tampa, Florida, a segment known as Better Call Behnken has successfully intervened to assist a couple from Hillsborough County who were entangled in bureaucratic delays, preventing them from receiving a promised state grant.
Roberto Torres Gonzalez and his wife, Margarita, had long envisioned upgrading their home’s windows. They decided to utilize the My Safe Florida Home Program, which offers grants of up to $10,000 for homeowners seeking hurricane-mitigation improvements. This program provided the motivation they needed to proceed with their home enhancements.
Despite completing the necessary upgrades and obtaining approval, the couple encountered obstacles when attempting to secure the funds, as bureaucratic red tape stalled the process.
Desperate for a resolution, they reached out to 8 On Your Side Consumer Investigator Shannon Behnken earlier this month. Mere weeks after seeking assistance, the state finally issued a check for the full amount of $10,000.
“Nothing happened until you got involved, really,” remarked Roberto Torres Gonzalez. “First and foremost, I want to thank God because this was an answered prayer for us… your engagement was what brought this to completion, and we are truly grateful.”
According to Gonzalez, the application process began in 2022 and was repeatedly stalled due to funding issues and administrative delays.
“It’s been a long wait,” he said, describing a series of setbacks, including notices that funding was not yet available.
The couple was able to complete the home improvements last fall. However, the program required documentation from their insurance company indicating whether the upgrades would result in a discount on their policy.
Complicating matters, Gonzalez said his insurer, Citizens, required him to switch to a new company. At the time he sought help, neither insurance provider had supplied the necessary form, leaving his application in limbo.
Behnken reached out to Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation, which oversees the program, was contacted. Gonzalez said a representative then called him and assured him the payment would be processed.
“You’ve got the drive and the intensity to reach the right people and that makes all the difference in the world,” Gonzalez said. “They were very helpful to me, and I really appreciate that.”
