U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The FBI searched the cellphone records of Republican Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan and seven other U.S. senators and a member of the U.S. House as part of its investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a newly released document shows.
The call logs cover several days during and around the insurrection, when rioters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to support then-incumbent President Donald Trump, who falsely claimed to have won reelection in 2020.
The logs do not show that the FBI obtained phone call recordings, only that an investigating agent was interested in who the senators were talking to, when they talked, how long they talked, and where the callers were. The document, released this week by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, does not say why those senators were identified in particular and it does not say whether any investigative leads resulted from the records.
According to a news release from the committee, the FBI sought and obtained data about the senators’ phone use in the days before, on and after the Jan. 6 insurrection, from Jan. 4 through Jan. 7, 2021.
The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Trump in 2023 for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, but the special prosecutor in charge of the investigation abandoned that case after Trump was re-elected in 2024. Department policy says that sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution, and after the 2021 insurrection, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision limiting a president’s liability for conduct while in office.
Asked whether Sullivan had any contact with people who participated in or organized the riot at the U.S. Capitol, Devyn Shea, a spokesperson for Sullivan, said, “absolutely not.”
In a written statement, Sullivan called the FBI investigation “an absolute outrage.”
“We’ve just learned the Biden FBI was engaged in what appears to be an unprecedented fishing expedition against at least nine sitting Republican members of Congress — none of whom were under any type of investigation — surveilling our personal cell phone calls with family members, staff and colleagues. This is a new low in the political weaponization of the Justice Department,” Sullivan’s statement said.
The other seven senators were Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) was also on the FBI list.
Some senators, including Hawley and Tuberville, voted to object to the certification of the electoral results of the 2020 election.
Sullivan voted to support the certification of the election, and in a statement the day after the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol, he called the event “sad” and “dispiriting.”
All have been supporters of Trump and his policies; in office, Sullivan has been a reliable vote for the president and his agenda.
The interior of the borough’s ballot processing center.
NOTN- Juneau voters appear poised to approve two cost-cutting tax measures while rejecting the third that would have shifted more of the city’s tax burden onto tourists, according to preliminary results from Tuesday’s municipal election.
Early results show Proposition 2 , which would exempt food and residential utilities from city sales tax, passing by a wide margin, with roughly 70% of voters in favor.
Proposition 1, which would reduce the city’s mill rate cap from 12 to 9 mills, is also leading narrowly with 3,104 yes votes to 2,920 no’s. Proposition 3, a proposed seasonal sales tax that would have raised summer rates while lowering winter ones, is trailing with 2,534 no votes to 2,514 yes.
Both Propositions 1 and 2 were placed on the ballot through signature drives by the Affordable Juneau Coalition.
City officials have warned that the two propositions could reduce annual revenue by as much as $10 million to $12 million, potentially forcing budget cuts or limits on the city’s ability to respond to emergencies.
The seasonal sales tax proposal, which the Assembly placed on the ballot, was intended to offset those losses by collecting more from visitors during the summer tourism season.
In the Assembly races, Greg Smith secured the District 1 seat with 4,092 votes, while Ella Adkison ran unopposed for the areawide seat.
The tightest contest came in District 2, where Nathaniel “Nano” Brooks led incumbent Wade Bryson by just three votes, 2,743 to 2,740.
Steve Whitney leads in the race for the Board of Education with 3,197 votes, followed by Melissa Cullum with 2,428, Jeremy “JJJ” Johnson with 2,366, and Jenny Thomas with 2,302. Board President Deedie Sorensen, received 1,317 votes.
A total of 6,073 ballots were tallied as of late Tuesday night about 21.7% of the 28,017 mailed to registered voters.
The City and Borough of Juneau said additional ballots cast at vote centers, drop boxes, or mailed by Election Day are still being processed.
Updated unofficial results are expected Friday, Oct. 10. The election is scheduled to be certified Oct. 21.
Supporters of free speech gather in September 2025 to protest the suspension of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’, across the street from the theater where the show is produced in Hollywood.Mario Tama/Getty Images
Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.
But that’s just what happened in response to ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s threat to punish the network for Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.
While bipartisan agreement may be rare, it’s not surprising that it came in defense of the First Amendment – and a popular TV show. A recent poll found that a whopping 90% of respondents called the First Amendment “vital,” while 64% believed it’s so close to perfection that they wouldn’t change a word.
In just 45 words, it bars Congress from establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion, interfering with the peoples’ right to assemble and petition, or abridging freedom of speech or the press.
Handwritten revisions by senators during the process of altering and consolidating the amendments to the U.S. Constitution proposed by James Madison of Virginia. National Archives
Soured on bills of rights
Building a strong national government was the focus of Madison and the other delegates who met in Philadelphia in May 1787 to draft the Constitution.
The government could not pay its debts, defend the frontier or protect commerce from interference by states and foreign governments.
Although Madison and the other framers aimed to create a stronger national government, they cared about protecting liberty. Many had helped create state constitutions that included pioneering bills of rights.
By the time the Constitutional Convention met, however, Madison had soured on such measures. During the 1780s, he had watched with alarm as state legislatures trampled on rights explicitly guaranteed by their constitutions. Bills of rights, he concluded, weren’t sufficient to protect rights.
The Constitution they wrote created a government powerful enough to promote the national interests while maintaining a check on state legislatures. It also established a system of checks and balances that ensured federal power wasn’t abused.
In the convention’s waning days, delegates briefly discussed adding a bill of rights but unanimously decided against it. They had sweated through almost four months of a sweltering Philadelphia summer and were ready to go home. When Virginia’s John Rutledge noted “the extreme anxiety of many members of the Convention to bring the business to an end,” he was stating the obvious. With the Constitution in final form, few had the appetite to haggle over the provisions of a bill of rights.
That decision nearly proved fatal when the Constitution went to the states for ratification.
The new Constitution’s supporters, known as Federalists, faced fierce opposition from Anti-Federalists who charged that a powerful national government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would inevitably lead to tyranny.
Ratification conventions in three of the most critical states – Massachusetts, New York and Virginia – were narrowly divided; ratification hung in the balance. Federalists resisted demands to make ratification contingent on amendments suggested by state conventions. But they agreed to add a bill of rights – after the Constitution was ratified and took effect.
The three critical states ratified without condition, and by midsummer 1788, the Constitution had been approved.
However, when the First Congress met in March 1789, the Federalist majority didn’t prioritize a bill of rights. They had won and were ready to move on.
Madison, now a Federalist leader in the House of Representatives, insisted that his party keep its word. He warned that failure to do so would undermine trust in the new government and give Anti-Federalists ammunition to demand a new convention to do what Congress had left undone.
But Madison wasn’t just arguing for his party keeping its word. He had also changed his mind.
The ratification debates and Madison’s correspondence with Thomas Jefferson led him to think differently about a bill of rights. He now thought it harmless and possibly helpful. Its provisions, Madison conceded, might become “fundamental maxims of a free government” and part of “the national sentiment.” Broad popular support for a bill of rights might provide a check on government officials and how they wielded power.
Madison pushed his colleagues relentlessly. Wary of provisions that would weaken the national government, he developed a slate of amendments focused on individual rights. Ultimately, Congress approved 12 amendments – ensuring rights from freedom of speech to protection from cruel and unusual punishment – and sent them to the states for ratification.
As Madison anticipated, the First Amendment wasn’t a cure for a government bent on suppressing dissent. From the Sedition Act in the 1790s to McCarthyism in the 1950s and the Trump administration’s assault on the First Amendment, government has used its awesome powers to pursue and punish critics.
Perhaps the ultimate protection for First Amendment rights is “national sentiment,” as Madison suggested. Norm-breaking presidents can disregard the law, and judges may cave. But public sentiment is a powerful force, as Jimmy Kimmel can attest.
Donald Nieman receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Council of Learned Societies. He is affiliated with Braver Angels.
In a series of cases over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has moved in a pro-presidential direction.Geoff Livingston/Getty Images
President Donald Trump set the tone for his second term by issuing 26 executive orders, four proclamations and 12 memorandums on his first day back in office. The barrage of unilateral presidential actions has not yet let up.
These have included Trump’s efforts to remove thousands of government workers and fire several prominent officials, such as members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the chair of the Commission on Civil Rights. He has also attempted to shut down entire agencies, such as the Department of Education and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
As a political science scholar who studies presidential power, I believe Trump’s recent actions mark the culmination of the unitary executive theory, which is perhaps the most contentious and consequential constitutional theory of the past several decades.
A prescription for a potent presidency
In 2017, Trump complained that the scope of his power as president was limited: “You know, the saddest thing is that because I’m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI, I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.”
The unitary executive theory suggests that such limits wrongly curtail the powers of the chief executive.
Formed by conservative legal theorists in the 1980s to help President Ronald Reagan roll back liberal policies, the unitary executive theory promises to radically expand presidential power.
There is no widely agreed upon definition of the theory. And even its proponents disagree about what it says and what it might justify. But in its most basic version, the unitary executive theory claims that whatever the federal government does that is executive in nature – from implementing and enforcing laws to managing most of what the federal government does – the president alone should personally control it.
This means the president should have total control over the entire executive branch, with its dozens of major governmental institutions and millions of employees. Put simply, the theory says the president should be able to issue orders to subordinates and to fire them at will.
President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office next to a poster displaying the Trump Gold Card on Sept. 19, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The president could boss around the FBI or order the U.S. attorney general to investigate his political opponents, as Trump has done. The president could issue signing statements – a written pronouncement – that reinterpret or ignore parts of the laws, like George W. Bush did in 2006 to circumvent a ban on torture. The president could control independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The president might be able to force the Federal Reserve to change interest rates, as Trump has suggested. And the president might possess inherent power to wage war as he sees fit without a formal authorization from Congress, as officials argued during Bush’s presidency.
A constitutionally questionable doctrine
A theory is one thing. But if it gains the official endorsement of the Supreme Court, it can become governing orthodoxy. It appears to many observers and scholars that Trump’s actions have intentionally invited court cases by which he hopes the judiciary will embrace the theory and thus permit him to do even more. And the current Supreme Court appears ready to grant that wish.
Until recently, the judiciary tended to indirectly address the claims that now appear more formally as the unitary executive theory.
During the country’s first two centuries, courts touched on aspects of the theory in cases such as Kendall v. U.S. in 1838, which limited presidential control of the postmaster general, and Myers v. U.S. in 1926, which held that the president could remove a postmaster in Oregon.
In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., the high court unanimously held that Congress could limit the president’s ability to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And in Morrison v. Olson the court in 1988 upheld the ability of Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire an independent counsel.
Some of those decisions aligned with some unitary executive claims, but others directly repudiated them.
These decisions clearly suggest that long-standing, anti-unitarian landmark decisions such as Humphrey’s are on increasingly thin ice. In fact, in Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2019 concurring opinion in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, where the court ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional, he articulated his desire to “repudiate” the “erroneous precedent” of Humphrey’s.
Several cases from the court’s emergency docket, or shadow docket, in recent months indicate that other justices share that desire. Such cases do not require full arguments but can indicate where the court is headed.
In Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Boyle and Trump v. Slaughter, all from 2025, the court upheld Trump’s firing of officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
Previously, these officials had appeared to be protected from political interference.
Remarks by conservative justices in those cases indicated that the court will soon reassess anti-unitary precedents.
In Trump v. Boyle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “whether this Court will narrow or overrule a precedent … there is at least a fair prospect (not certainty, but at least a reasonable prospect) that we will do so.” And in her dissent in Trump v. Slaughter, Justice Elena Kagan said the conservative majority was “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s and finally officially embrace the unitary executive.
In short, the writing is on the wall, and Humphrey’s may soon go the way of Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions that had guided American life for decades.
As for what judicial endorsement of the unitary executive theory could mean in practice, Trump seems to hope it will mean total control and hence the ability to eradicate the so-called “deep state.” Other conservatives hope it will diminish the government’s regulatory role.
Kagan recently warned it could mean the end of administrative governance – the ways that the federal government provides services, oversees businesses and enforces the law – as we know it:
“Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control. Congress created them … out of one basic vision. It thought that in certain spheres of government, a group of knowledgeable people from both parties – none of whom a President could remove without cause – would make decisions likely to advance the long-term public good.”
If the Supreme Court officially makes the chief executive a unitary executive, the advancement of the public good may depend on little more than the whims of the president, a state of affairs normally more characteristic of dictatorship than democracy.
Graham G. Dodds does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If that name sounded familiar to you when you heard the news, it should.
We here at THG have already written about Camp Bryan.
Disgraced Theranos founder and confessed scammer Jen Shah are both serving their respective prison sentences at the same federal facility.
Both women’s white collar crimes had real, dire consequences for their victims. Neither of them were luring underage girls into a pedophile’s bed like Maxwell was, however.
Loud and unapologetic, Jen Shah clashes with castmates over her social media wrongdoings. She blames her social media manager. (Image Credit: Bravo)
In 2022, The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star Jen Shah pleaded guilty to wire fraud.
This was over a scam in which she targeted the elderly with a scheme that purported to include business-building tools.
Meanwhile, Holmes’ conviction for fraud and conspiracy came from a much more forward-facing scam. It seems that her legal consequences stemmed from misleading investors rather than the people who believed that they were part of genuine medical trials.
Both of these crimes are heinous. But, as we said, not of the same magnitude as sexual predation upon underage girls.
Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes alongside her boyfriend Billy Evans, following a hearing at the courthouse on March 17, 2023. (Photo Credit: Philip Pacheco/Getty Images)
Obviously, this facility is a prison. But it is, by all accounts, nicer and more relaxed by far than Ghislaine Maxwell’s previous prison.
Her cooperation with Todd Blanche, the former personal attorney of Donald Trump and the current Deputy Attorney General of the actual United States, has clearly paid dividends.
Signage near the entrance to Federal Prison Camp Bryan on August 01, 2025 in Bryan, Texas. (Photo Credit: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
As for Camp Bryan, Business Insider spoke with consultant Justin Paperny about conditions in the prison.
FPC Bryan might physically resemble a community college or a small office park, he shared. It is a minimum security facility full of white collar criminals — and Maxwell.
In Paperny’s mind, the key difference at her new facility may be that “cooperation isn’t frowned upon” by her fellow inmates.
Not everyone there is rich, let alone famous. But there is little stigma against cooperation with authorities, in contrast to “harder” prison facilities.
It is, of course, possible that Maxwell’s heinous crimes against children will set her apart from other inmates. But Bryan is not really the sort of place where one usually has to look out for a shiv. Instead, best to beware of Jen Shah’s Housewives play.
Ghislaine Maxwell attends day 1 of the 4th Annual WIE Symposium at Center 548 on September 20, 2013. (Photo Credit: Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images)
Will these three disgraced criminals become besties behind bars?
As soon as people connected the dots that Ghislaine Maxwell is now a the same facility as Jen Shah and Elizabeth Holmes, some began to wonder if they’ll become friends.
It is possible. Many people form social connections that they had never imagined while free. (Prison often makes people worse; these new associates are one of the ways that this happens)
However … scamming people, be they the rich or the elderly, is a far cry from targeting teen girls and serving them up to an evil man.
Some people have lines that they will not cross. Others will excuse any friendship, giving history’s worst monsters the undeserved benefit of the doubt.
We will say that it’s unlikely that Maxwell is going to emerge from prison a Real Housewife. But if Jen Shah ever returns to Bravo, we have to imagine that she’ll have some interesting stories to share.
While other pop stars might be enduring one PR crisis after another, Addison Rae is having one hell of a week.
In addition to celebrating her 25th birthday, Rae is receiving rave reviews for her work in the new Netflix limited series, Monster: Ed Gein.
And Addison decided to top off her latest succession of wins by flashing her Instagram followers.
Addison Rae attends Spotlight: Addison Rae at GRAMMY Museum L.A. Live on August 21, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Rebecca Sapp/Getty Images for The Recording Academy)
Addison Rae is having a week
Okay, she managed to abide by Instagram’s “no nipple” policy, but she still surprised fans with an unusually risque post (below).
And based on the nearly 400,000 likes in less than 24 hours, it seems that they very much appreciated her efforts.
But while many of the comments are about what you would expect, quite a few of them took the surprising approach of congratulating Addison on having a better week than Taylor Swift.
“How does it feel to have made a better album than Taylor Swift?” one commenter asked.
“How does it feel to have a better album that Flop Taylor?” another inquired.
“The actual life of a showgirl,” a third chimed in. You get the idea.
Obviously, art is subjective, and there’s no way to state concretely that one piece of music is superior to another.
Addison Rae attends iHeartRadio Hot 99.5’s Jingle Ball 2024 Presented By Capital One at Capital One Arena on December 17, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for iHeartRadio)
But reviews for Addison’s album have been decidedly strong, while Taylor’s have been rather … well, mixed would be the polite way to put it.
Addison’s career began in the summer of 2019, when she joined TikTok and started posting dance routines from her bedroom in Lafayette, Louisiana.
From there, she managed to make the leap that millions of content creators dream of, and she’s now a bona fide pop star.
We’re sure she’s not one to compete with other artists, but being compared to the biggest entertainer on the planet at 25 must feel pretty good, right?
Anyway, Addison certainly has a lot to celebrate this week. And we’re sure there’s a lot more where that came from.
He gave Blake a shout-out as “our friend.” But there’s a twist that further complicates things.
Actress Blake Lively attends “Another Simple Favor” New York Screening at Jazz at Lincoln Center on April 27, 2025. (Photo Credit: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
Is Blake Lively back in Taylor Swift’s good graces? Was there ever a real issue?
Podcast fans listened to Travis and Jason Kelce gushing over The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.
Most of us know Blake Lively from Gossip Girl.
But the 2005 coming-of-age comedy-drama was her actual breakout role.
The Kelce brothers gushed over Blake’s role in the film during the episode — even if they ribbed on her running form.
Specifically, the guys referred to Blake as their “friend” during the podcast episode.
Travis called the film relatable.
Jason very accurately described Blake as tall, strong, bold, and beautiful.
Additionally, Travis’ big bro tossed an “I love you” Blake’s way. We’re sure that Jason’s wife Kylie Kelce isn’t fuming in jealousy.
That certainly sounds like a ringing endorsement of Blake — and a sign that things are better than reports have made them out to be with Taylor.
Together, Travis Kelce and Jason Kelce discuss ‘The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants’ on their film club podcast. (Image Credit: YouTube)
There is one important detail about this podcast episode
As we mentioned, there is a complex twist that could potentially derail the perceived olive branch towards Blake Lively.
As it turns out, this episode of New Heights Film Club is not new.
It is a re-upload that first aired in 2024.
In March, the brothers re-uploaded the episode — for members only.
Only now, in October, is the episode becoming public. Which definitely throws a wrench into the premature “reconciliation” celebrations on social media.
On ‘New Heights Film Club,’ Travis Kelce reviews a 20-year-old movie. (Image Credit: YouTube)
That said, the comments are filled with people expressing certainty that the timing of this video is not a coincidence.
And some of those believe that the timing of this release (about 7 months after members got access to the video) comes only after the window for Taylor to be at risk of deposition.
This series of YouTube comments may be from genuine YouTube users, despite similar commentary and mildly conspicuous usernames. Who can say? (Image Credit: YouTube)
What do fans think? Well, that depends who counts as a ‘fan’
Interestingly, some very like-minded commenters are putting Taylor Swift on blast for seeming to support Blake Lively.
A lot of these commenters, we cannot help but notice, have YouTube usernames that include a string of numbers. Which could mean nothing.
Though many people have since reviewed the evidence, a lot of people never revisited things after falling for the smear campaign against Blake Lively in 2024.
So these comments could all be from real people, believe it or not.
Anyway, it would be nice if this really is Taylor signaling her support for Blake. She, of all people, knows what it’s like to have people turn on you because a couple of influential people want to bury you.
It would also be nice if Taylor would just, you know, use her words to say things. Not everything has to be The Da Vinci Code. Use your words.
Meghan Markle is currently in Paris for the city’s fall fashion week, and it seems there’s nowhere she can go to escape the obsessive criticism of terminally online weirdos.
And today, she’s taking flak for giggling at an inopportune time.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex arrives for The Paley Center for Media gala honoring actor and director Tyler Perry, at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills on December 4, 2024. (Photo by ETIENNE LAURENT/AFP via Getty Images)
Duchess Meghan gets roasted for behavior at fashion show
Meghan attended the Balenciaga runway show over the weekend, and her haters really had a field day.
“Leave it to Meghan Markle to be the only one to laugh when a model walking the Balenciaga show has a trip up,” wrote one person who tweeted video of the incident:
“Reminds me of that time Meghan Markle laughed at an Autistic woman singing the Canadian National Anthem at the Canucks game.”
And as Radar Online reports, many X users chimed in with criticism of their own”
“Very sympathetic. A real mark of a good person, eh?” one asked.
“And then she very quickly realized how inappropriate and cruel that was. Too little, too late,” another added.
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex attends the Balenciaga Womenswear Spring/Summer 2026 show as part of Paris Fashion Week on October 04, 2025 in Paris, France. (Photo by Arnold Jerocki/Getty Images for Balenciaga)
“Why does she find such joy in others tripping or falling…” a third chimed in.
Others alleged that this is the sort of thing that Meghan does on a regular basis.
“Inappropriate laughter (usually at someone else’s misfortune) is the only spontaneous thing Meghan does. All the rest is calculated and performative,” wrote one such accuser.
“She’s a terrible person. Always laughing at other people’s misfortunes. She laughed at Princess Charlotte. A child,” another alleged.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attends the 2025 TIME100 Summit at Jazz at Lincoln Center on April 23, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for TIME)
We report on Meghan pretty regularly here at THG, and we weren’t aware that she’s in the habit of publicly cackling at other people’s misfortunes.
And it’s worth noting that the video from the Balenciaga show is not nearly as damning as the original poster thinks it is.
Meghan’s light chuckle could have been in response to literally anything.
And, of course, if Kate Middleton had done something similar, many of these same critics would probably be praising her for showing her human side.
Meghan shouldn’t have to deal with this sort of treatment — but the sad fact is she’s probably used to it by now.
About a week after the legendary singer postponed her Las Vegas residency due to some kind of health concern, Parton’s sister has now spoken out.
And it doesn’t sound like things are going too well for the artist.
Dolly Parton attends the opening of Country Music Hall of Fame® and Museum’s new exhibit ‘Dolly Parton: Journey of a Seeker’ at Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum on May 19, 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee. (GETTY)
“Last night, I was up all night praying for my sister, Dolly,” Freida wrote on Facebook on October 7. “Many of you know she hasn’t been feeling her best lately. I truly believe in the power of prayer, and I have been led to ask all of the world that loves her to be prayer warriors and pray with me.”
It remains unclear/unknown exactly what is going on with Parton.
Freida ended her post with a heart emoji, adding:
“She’s strong, she’s loved, and with all the prayers being lifted for her, I know in my heart she’s going to be just fine. Godspeed, my sissy Dolly. We all love you!”
Dolly Parton speaks onstage at Dolly Parton’s Threads: My Songs In Symphony World Premiere at Schermerhorn Symphony Center on March 20, 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Jason Kempin/Getty Images)
Parton is 79 years old.
She announced on September 28 that she had to postpone her residency — which was scheduled to run from December 4 to December 13 at the Colosseum Theater at Caesars Palace — until September 2026 due to “health challenges.”
“My doctors tell me that I must have a few procedures,” the icon explained in her Instagram post. “As I joked with them, it must be time for my 100,000-mile check-up, although it’s not the usual trip to see my plastic surgeon!”
Continued Parton last month:
“In all seriousness, given this, I am not going to be able to rehearse and put together the show that I want you to see, and the show that you deserve to see. You pay good money to see me perform, and I want to be at my best for you.”
Dolly Parton attends “Dolly: An Original Musical” fireside chat and press conference at The Fisher Center for the Performing Arts on January 28, 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Jason Kempin/Getty Images)
Again, we don’t know what’s going on with Parton.
But she sees a bright future for herself.
“Don’t worry about me quittin’ the business because God hasn’t said anything about stopping yet. But, I believe He is telling me to slow down right now so I can be ready for more big adventures with all of you,” she also wrote in September.
The Grammy winner’s medical ordeal follows a difficult year for the beloved country star… who in March announced that Carl Dean, her husband of 58 years, had passed away at the age of 82.
According to recent research, the drug, while still in its trial phases, has shown potential in inhibiting hormones that contribute to high blood pressure.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
