NOTN- A 50-year-old Juneau man was arrested this week after investigators intercepted a package containing more than 200 grams of fentanyl that was shipped to the capital city, according to a press release by the Southeast Alaska Cities Against Drugs (SEACAD) task force.
Investigators identified the suspicious package on October 12 and determined it contained about 219 grams of fentanyl, SEACAD said. The next day, the package was delivered to Joshua R. Riley, who allegedly took it to All-Star Auto, a business in the 900 block of West 10th Street.
Officers executed a search warrant after he opened the package. In addition to the fentanyl, SEACAD agents said they seized other drugs, including 10.12 grams of heroin, 8.2 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, 4.89 grams of methamphetamine, and another 0.66 grams of fentanyl in a separate package. A digital scale was also found.
Riley was arrested and taken to Lemon Creek Correctional Center on federal charges of Attempted Possession with Intent to Deliver and Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances.
The seized narcotics have an estimated combined street value of about $111,000, SEACAD said.
SEACAD, Southeast Alaska Cities Against Drugs, is a regional task force comprised of municipal police departments from Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Haines, Skagway, Petersburg, Hoonah, Wrangell, Craig, and Yakutat, the Alaska State Troopers, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Postal Inspection Service, and Coast Guard Investigative Service. Together, they work to investigate drug importation and distribution in the Southeast Alaska region.
NOTN- Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is joining a bipartisan group of lawmakers urging the Office of Management and Budget to guarantee back pay for federal workers affected by the ongoing government shutdown.
In a letter sent to OMB Director Russell Vought, the lawmakers said the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 clearly requires all federal employees, whether furloughed or working without pay, to receive full back pay once the shutdown ends.
The group says OMB recently removed affirmation of that guarantee.
The full letter can be viewed below;
Dear Director Vought:
The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) recent update to the Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations document implies that furloughed federal workers are not entitled to back pay. Additionally, a draft OMB memo stated the administration would deny back pay to furloughed federal workers for the current government shutdown. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, we worked with President Trump to enact the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019, the intent of which is clear – federal employees are entitled to retroactive pay in the event of a government shutdown. We applauded President Trump for signing this bipartisan bill into law.
On January 16, 2019, the Senate unanimously passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act to guarantee back pay for all impacted federal workers once a government shutdown ends. This law was enacted during the longest government shutdown which lasted 35 days at the end of 2018, and into the beginning of 2019. Prior to the law’s passage, Congress had to pass specific legislation after each shutdown to ensure furloughed workers received back pay.
Explicitly, the law guarantees back pay for all federal employees in the event of a government shutdown. “Each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations, and each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.” The law requires that retroactive pay be required in the event of any government shutdown after December 22, 2018.
The law is clear: all impacted government employees, regardless of excepted or furloughed status, are entitled to back pay after a government shutdown ends, which is consistent with the guidance currently provided by federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM’s shutdown guidance from September 2025 still states that furloughed federal workers will be provided back pay once the government reopens. The decision by OMB to remove critical guidance on federal employee back pay is causing unnecessary stress for the federal workforce comprised of nearly 2.2 million employees.
Thus, we request you immediately clarify and update the Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations Document and other relevant materials to affirm that furloughed employees will receive back pay, as is required by law.
NOTN- As Juneau wraps up another long cruise ship season, Mayor Beth Weldon says the city recently hosted a delegation from Greenland seeking advice on how to develop its own cruise tourism industry.
The delegation met with Juneau officials this week to learn from the capital city’s experience as one of Alaska’s busiest cruise ports.
“Population 58,000 in their whole country, it was a pleasure to talk to them. ” Weldon said, “They are looking at building a couple of docks, and so they’re going around talking to people and hearing what we have to say. So one of the questions is, what have you learned? So some of the things we shared were, control your growth, make sure you bring the community along, make sure you know what’s sacred to the community so you don’t screw that part up.”
Weldon said she also emphasized the importance of maintaining local identity within the tourism economy. “We do well with local people running excursions, and most of our stores are almost all locally owned,” she said. “Instead of just having some place where the cruise ships own everything, or another entity owns everything. But this way, the benefits from the tourism industry certainly helped the locals.”
The conversation came as Juneau’s 2025 cruise season came to a close with the arrival of the final ship on Tuesday afternoon. Weldon said the season provided a welcome boost to the economy, but added that residents are also ready for a little breathing room.
A campsites is seen on Oct. 8, 2025, near the intersection of the Seward Highway and Northern Lights Boulevard in Anchorage. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is planning to remove trash, waste, and the belongings of unhoused Alaskans from land near state highways, continuing an offensive that began last year.
In a public notice published last week, the department said it is seeking bids from contractors who can perform “the as needed removal of unauthorized encampments … at various locations within the state” that are managed by DOT&PF.
The department did not say how much it proposes to spend on the removal, only that “approval or continuation of a contract resulting from this (invitation to bid) is contingent upon legislative appropriation.”
Alaska’s hub cities, particularly Anchorage, have a large population of unhoused residents.
Camps already removed by Alaska DOT&PF
Since November 2024, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has identified eight encampments that it has removed:
NW/SW/SE quadrants of the 36th/Seward Highway Intersection (Anch)
East Fireweed Road/Parks Highway (Mat-Su)
Minnesota/International off-ramp (Anch)
Seward Meridian/Blue Lupine (Mat-Su)
NE quadrant of the Tudor/Seward Highway intersection (Anch)
A Street – between 36th Avenue and 38th Avenue (Anch)
Seward Highway – south side, Campbell Creek Bridge (Anch)
International Airport Road & Minnesota Drive – Northeast Interchange Area (Anch)
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is legal for local governments to ban outdoor camping, even if no homeless shelter space is available. That move has provided the legal justification for large-scale camp removal nationwide, and since the ruling, DOT&PF has removed eight encampments in southcentral Alaska.
According to the proposed contract, the winning bidder will be available “on an on-call, as-needed, and/or urgent basis.” The contract will last for one year, but it can be renewed up to four times for additional one-year terms.
The contract is expected to be issued by Nov. 11 and would go into effect in December.
“This is a continuation of the work the department has always undertaken and was of particular focus, in coordination with local government partners, starting last year to remove encampments within state highway (right of way),” said Shannon McCarthy, a spokesperson for the department, by email.
Under state law and federal regulations, McCarthy said, the department must ensure that rights of way — the land designated for transportation — are actually used for transportation and are clear of things that might obstruct the right of way or could cause a safety risk.
“In addition, encampments in the ROW (right of way) have increased the risk of pedestrians vs. vehicle crashes, caused traffic conflicts that result in serious injury and fatalities, prevented the public from using these rights-of-way, and severely limit the intended highway buffer zones for purposes such as safety pullouts, noise buffers, stormwater retention/filtration areas, and other transportation and functional purposes,” McCarthy wrote.
In April, DOT&PF Commissioner Ryan Anderson signed a new policy describing how DOT will remove encampments.
Under that policy, encampments underneath bridges, near utility structures or on medians are the highest priority to be removed.
The policy also requires consultation with the Alaska Department of Law “to ensure constitutional and civil rights protections are observed.”
Alaska Republican U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (Alaska Beacon file photos)
Alaska’s two U.S. senators are split on whether or not it is appropriate for the U.S. military to kill suspected drug smugglers without trial or a declaration of war.
On Tuesday, the federal government said it had killed another six people aboard a boat in international waters of the Caribbean Sea, with President Trump claiming on social media that they were drug smugglers.
Since Sept. 2, the U.S. military has killed 27 people in the Caribbean Sea without a declaration of war or criminal trial, according to statistics kept by the New York Times.
In each case, the federal government has asserted without evidence that all the people killed aboard the boats were smuggling drugs.
Last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted to have the Senate vote on a resolution that would have ended the Caribbean Sea bombings unless approved by Congress.
Sixty votes were needed to call a vote. Only 48 senators — all Democrats, plus Murkowski and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky — voted in favor of bringing the issue to a vote.
“While I commend the administration’s concerted efforts to address the devastation of drug trafficking on communities across the country, I do not believe the information I have received justifies this interpretation of the President’s Article II powers,” Murkowski said, referring to the section of the Constitution that names the president the commander in chief of the military.
“I take very seriously my Article I responsibility when it comes to Congress’s power to declare war. I don’t think that full information on the legal and factual justification for armed attacks on suspected drug traffickers is too much to ask,” Murkowski said.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, joined the rest of the Senate’s Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania in voting to support the bombings.
Afterward, he offered a written statement explaining his vote.
“Days ago, I was briefed by Secretary of State Rubio on Venezuelan narcoterrorist cartels flooding our country with deadly drugs. Nicolás Maduro — the illegitimate leader of Venezuela and a criminal indicted by U.S. prosecutors — refuses to cooperate with the U.S. and is clearly aiding these vicious drug traffickers who are responsible for killing tens of thousands of Americans. President Trump’s lawful strikes against these cartels are saving lives and, importantly, establishing deterrence. Under Article II, he has the authority to defend our homeland, just as President George H.W. Bush did when he ordered the invasion of Panama in 1989 to remove the drug-trafficking dictator Manuel Noriega,” the statement said.
“Senate Democrats’ resolution was another attempt to restrict the President’s ability to act — emboldening cartels and putting American lives at risk. These senators would never tolerate ISIS or al-Qaeda operating freely near our shores: eliminating a terrorist organization like Tren de Aragua that is literally killing thousands of Americans is no different. More Americans have died from drug overdoses in the past seven years than in both World Wars and the Vietnam War combined. Alaskans know this devastation firsthand, as poisons like fentanyl tear apart families in our cities and Alaska Native villages. Eliminating these cartels before they reach our shores protects our county and sends a strong message of deterrence.”
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is displeased with a broadcast network. He makes his displeasure clear in public speeches, interviews and congressional testimony.
The network, afraid of the regulatory agency’s power to license their owned-and-operated stations, responds quickly. They change the content of their broadcasts. Network executives understand the FCC’s criticism is supported by the White House, and the chairman implicitly represents the president.
Then there was John F. Kennedy’s FCC chairman, Newton Minow, who criticized the networks for not airing more news and public affairs programming to support American democracy during the Cold War.
And there was George W. Bush’s FCC chairman, Michael Powell. He decided that a fleeting “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show – when Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed – was sufficient to punish CBS with a fine.
In each of those cases, the FCC represented the views of the White House. And in each case, the regulatory agency was employed to pressure the networks into airing content more aligned with the administration’s ideology.
But what’s interesting in those four examples is that two of the FCC chairmen were Democrats – Fly and Minow – and two were Republicans – Powell and Carr.
As a media historian, I’m aware of the long-existing bipartisan enthusiasm for exploiting the fact that no First Amendment exists in American broadcasting. Pressuring broadcasters by leveraging FCC power occurs regardless of which party controls the White House. And when the agency is used in partisan fashion, the rival party will criticize such politicization of regulation as a threat to free speech.
This recurring cycle is made possible by the fact that broadcasting is licensed by the government. Since a Supreme Court decision in 1943, the supremacy of the FCC in broadcast regulation has been unquestioned.
Such strong governmental oversight separates broadcasting from any other medium of mass communication in the United States. And it’s the reason why there’s no “free speech” when it comes to Kimmel, or any other performer, on U.S. airwaves.
In 1938, the FCC began its first investigation into network practices and policies, which resulted in new regulations. One of the new rules stated that no network could own and operate more than one licensed station in any single market. This forced NBC, which owned two networks that operated stations in several markets, to divest itself of one of its networks. NBC sued.
In the first serious constitutional test of the FCC’s full authority, in 1943, the Supreme Court vindicated the FCC’s expansive power over all U.S. broadcasting in its 5–4 verdict in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States. The ruling has stood since.
That’s why there’s no First Amendment in broadcasting. The Supreme Court ruled that, due to spectrum scarcity – the idea that the airwaves are a limited public resource and therefore not every American can operate a broadcast station – the FCC’s power over broadcasting must be expansive.
The 1934 act, the 1943 Supreme Court decision read, “gave the Commission … expansive powers … and a comprehensive mandate to ‘encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest,’ if need be, by making ‘special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain (network) broadcasting.’”
The ruling also explains why the FCC can be credited with having created the American Broadcasting Company. Yes, the same ABC that suspended Kimmel in the face of FCC threats was the network that emerged from NBC’s forced divestiture of its Blue Network as a result of the 1943 Supreme Court decision.
The empowerment of the FCC by NBC v. U.S. led to such content restrictions as the Fairness Doctrine, which intended to ensure balanced political broadcasting, instituted in 1949, and later, additional FCC rules against obscenity and indecency on the airwaves. The Supreme Court decision also encouraged FCC chairmen to flex their regulatory muscles in public more often.
A federal appeals court ruled on Nov. 2, 2011, that CBS should not be fined US$550,000 for Janet Jackson’s infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ AP Photo/David Phillip
For example, when CBS suspended news commentator Cecil Brown in 1943 for truthful but critical news commentary about the U.S. World War II effort, FCC Chairman Fly expressed his displeasure with the network’s decision.
“It is a little strange,” Fly told the press, “that all Americans are to enjoy free speech except radio commentators.”
When FCC Chairman Minow complained about television in the U.S. devolving into a “vast wasteland” in 1961, the networks responded both defensively and productively. They invested far more money into news and public affairs programming. That led to significantly more news reporting and documentary production throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
A ‘hands-off’ FCC
In the early 2000s, FCC Chairman Powell promised to “refashion the FCC into an outfit that is fast, decisive and, above all, hands-off.”
Yet his promise to be “hands-off” did not apply to content regulation. In 2004, his FCC concluded a contentious legal battle with Clear Channel Communications over comments ruled “indecent” by shock jock Howard Stern. The settlement resulted in a US$1.75 million payment by Clear Channel Communications – the largest fine ever collected by the FCC for speech on the airwaves.
Powell apparently enjoyed policing content, as evidenced by the $550,000 fine his FCC levied against CBS for the fleeting exposure of singer Janet Jackson’s breast during the Super Bowl. The fine was eventually overturned. But Powell did successfully lobby Congress to significantly hike the amount of money the FCC could fine broadcasters for indecency. The fine for a single incident increased from $32,000 to $325,000, and up to $3 million if a network broadcasts it on multiple stations.
Powell’s regulatory activism, done mostly to curb the outrageous antics of radio shock jocks, resulted in some of the most significant and long-lasting restrictions on broadcast freedom in U.S. history. Thus, Carr’s 2025 threats toward ABC can be viewed in a historical context as an extension of established FCC activism.
Demonstrators hold signs on Sept. 18, 2025, outside Los Angeles’ El Capitan Entertainment Centre, where the late-night show ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ is staged. AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
But Carr’s threat also appeared to contradict his previously espoused values.
As the author of the FCC section in Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for federal government policies, Carr wrote: “The FCC should promote freedom of speech … and pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints.” In exploiting the FCC’s licensing power to threaten to penalize speech he found offensive, Carr failed to promote either freedom of speech or diversity of viewpoints.
If there’s one thing the Carr-Kimmel episode teaches us, it’s that more Americans should know the structural constraints in the U.S. system of broadcasting. Media literacy has proved essential as curbs to free expression – both official and unofficial – have become more popular.
When the FCC threatens a broadcaster, it does so in Americans’ name.
If Americans applaud regulatory activism when it supports their partisan beliefs, consistency demands they accept the same regulatory activism in the hands of their political opponents. If Americans prefer their political opposition show restraint in the regulation of broadcasting, then they need to promote restraint when their preferred administration is in power.
Michael J. Socolow 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.
Jennifer Aniston has been speaking publicly about the fact that she doesn’t have children, and for the most part, she’s been applauded for her candor and honesty.
But some of her remarks have received blowback from folks who believe that the Friends star may have unintentionally disparaged the practice of adoption.
The backlash stems from comments Aniston made during a recent appearance on the “Armchair Expert” podcast.
Jennifer Aniston arrives for the 81st annual Golden Globe Awards at The Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, California, on January 7, 2024. (Photo by MICHAEL TRAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Jen began by explaining that at 56, she feels that the “ship has sailed” and there’s a “peaceful” quality to her life.
“It’s so peaceful,” Aniston said. “But I will say there’s a point where it’s like out of my control. There’s literally nothing I can do about it.”
“When people say, ‘But you can adopt,’ I don’t want to adopt,” she continued.
“I want my own DNA in a little person. That’s the only way, selfish or not, whatever that is, I’ve wanted it.”
Jennifer Aniston attends the “Murder Mystery 2” photocall at Pont Debilly on March 16, 2023 in Paris, France. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)
Aniston was speaking only of her own personal preferences, but across the social media landscape, critics accused her of bashing adoption as a general practice.
“I sympathize with her because my mom also has infertility issues. That’s why they adopted me. Me not having their DNA doesn’t change anything about being a parent,” wrote one X user.
“Jennifer Aniston calling adoption ‘not for her’ because she only wants her ‘own DNA’ is brutally tone-deaf. Millions of kids need homes, but celebrity empathy apparently stops where genetics begin. Dressing that up as honesty doesn’t make it any less self‑absorbed,” another added.
Elsewhere on the podcast, Aniston says that she still finds herself thinking that certain romantic partners “would have made some good kids,” but she added that the sentiment will “pass within three seconds.”
Jennifer Aniston arrives for the 81st annual Golden Globe Awards at The Beverly Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, California, on January 7, 2024. (Photo by MICHAEL TRAN/AFP via Getty Images)
“It just wasn’t in the plan, whatever the plan was,” she said, adding that “it’s very emotional, especially in the moment when they say ‘that’s it,’ because there is a weird moment when that happens.”
This is not the first time that Aniston has spoken abouyt these issues.
“Here I am today. The ship has sailed,” she said in a 2022 interview with Allure. “I actually feel a little relief now because there is no more, ‘Can I? Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.’ I don’t have to think about that anymore.”
However, it’s the first time that Aniston has spoken publicly about her stance on adoption, and she’ll continue to receive some blowback for her comments.
On this past Sunday’s new episode of Sister Wives, the Brown family patriarch opened up about he and wife Robyn selling their Flagstaff, Arizona home in order to move into bigger residence on the other side of the city.
(As viewers likely knew at the time, these scene were filmed many, many months ago.)
(TLC)
“This house had a series of sad events. First of all, I started breaking up with my family. I get Covid. Christine leaves,” Kody said on of his first wife to exit the polygamous marriage in November 2021.
Since that time, of course, Janelle and Meri have also walked out on their spiritual unions… leaving Kody and Robyn in a monogamous relationship.
The father of 17, meanwhile, also dealt with the ultimate tragedy in March 2024 when his son Garrison committed suicide.
“And then, this is where I got the news of Garrison’s passing,” Kody added on this episode. This place has pain in it.”
Kody Brown doesn’t seem like a great dad. (TLC)
While alongside Robyn outside of their house, Kody went on to admit that he’s done with the past. It’s been too painful of late.
“I’m just excited to leave. I’m very, very excited. I feel serenity at the other place. The peace that I’ve been looking for, I think,” he said.
“We experienced a lot of heartache here. This is where my heart broke, right here. We want a new beginning. Something different, something new. So much has changed,” he continued on the episode.
Kody and Robyn Brown have managed to stay together through the years. (TLC)
In a confessional of her own, Robyn delved into up she personally experienced at the home when she learned her former sister wives were peacing out.
“I was in a deep, deep depression in this house while the splits were happening. While the divorces were happening. Every split was happening while we were living in this hashknife house,” she said.
As for those ex-sister wives themselves?
Christine has been married to David Woolley for years and isn’t exactly connected any longer with her awful ex.
“I just found out from a random stranger, like online, about Kody and Robyn selling their house,” she said when the cameras turned to her. “And I just didn’t believe it at all.”
Kody Brown appears to be in distress here. (TLC)
She continued:
“Kody probably has a lot of hard memories in that house. He had three wives leave him while he lived in that house. And yeah, it’s his and Robyn’s home, and it was just them inside. But think about all the conversations they had and all the hard times that he had in different rooms of that house.
“All the frustration and anger that he felt in the house.”
We previously reported on Kody and Robyn listing the Flagstaff home for $1.7 million in August 2024.
According to property records, they first purchased the home in 2019 for $890,000 — and ended up selling it for $1.8 million in November 2024.
How did they meet? Is it serious? When are they going public?
John Mayer speaks onstage as John Mayer performs at a private concert benefiting The Heart and Armor Foundation for Veterans Health at Henson Studios on September 18, 2025. (Photo Credit: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for The Heart and Armor)
Random new couple alert: John Mayer & Kat Stickler
According to a report by Us Weekly, 47-year-old John Mayer is dating Kat Stickler.
Mayer is of course a musician.
He does not have a great reputation as a person. However, his qualities as a human being aside, reports consistently describe him as fantastic in bed.
Stickler is not quite so famous, but she is very recognizable from social media — particularly TikTok.
The 30-year-old mom often shares stories involving her 5-year-old daughter. She also posts those videos that misuse “POV” for whatever reason.
As multiple outlets reported on the two, an inside source shared details about the alleged entanglement.
“John sought her out and pursued her,” the insider dished.
“Kat just broke up with someone she had been dating for a few months,” the source detailed.
Over a year ago, she was dating Bachelor Nation’s very own Jason Tartick. They split in October 2024. It sounds like this ex may have been more recent.
“And,” the insider explained, Stickler “thought it would be fun to date again, and was interested in John.”
Musician John Mayer attends The 2025 Pollstar Awards at The Beverly Hilton on April 16, 2025. (Photo Credit: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)
Apparently, he was the interested party (but she’s ‘having fun’)
“He has been actively pursuing her,” the source reiterated.
The insider detailed that John Mayer has been “inviting her places and texting her often.”
And it worked!
As for Kat Stickler, the source admits that she “doesn’t think this will be a serious relationship.”
For now, however, the insider says that Stickler is “having fun.”
Kat Stickler attends the Project Healthy Minds 3rd Annual Gala at Spring Studios on October 09, 2025. (Photo Credit: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
We mentioned earlier that reports pretty consistently say that Mayer is an extremely good lay.
(And we cannot confirm or dispute rumors of his generous endowment)
So it of course makes sense to hear that Stickler is enjoying herself.
“She is interested,” the source emphasized, “and seeing where it goes.”
One has to wonder who this well-placed insider is to share so much of Stickler’s thoughts on the matter without seeming to know much from Mayer’s side.
John Mayer attends the World Premiere of F1® The Movie in Times Square on June 16, 2025. (Photo Credit: Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Pictures)
Is this a relationship ‘soft launch’ or a leak?
Some might conclude that John Mayer or Kat Stickler or both wanted to soft launch whatever they have going on.
If so, you’d think that it’s Stickler, given the inside source’s POV … except that they’re not describing someone head over heels in love and ready to go public.
Maybe someone outside of this alleged entanglement wanted the world to know.
Will the fun stop now that everyone knows, or will we start seeing these two take a more public approach?
Only time will tell. Maybe Stickler will join the ranks of Mayer’s exes with eye-popping stories to share. Or maybe not.
Kevin Federline is sounding the alarm about his ex-wife’s mental health.
And he’s gone so far as to claim that Britney Spears’ behavior has led him to fear for the safety of their two sons.
Federline, who was married to Spears from 2004 to 2007, has a new memoir on the way, and the excerpts we’re seeing so far do not portray Britney in a very flattering light.
Singer Kevin Federline makes an appearance on MTV’s Total Request Live on November 2, 2006 in New York City. (Photo by Peter Kramer/Getty Images)
Kevin accuses Britney of brandishing weapons near their sons
The book, titled You Thought You Knew, won’t hit stores until next week.
But an excerpt published today by the New York Times is already generating controversy on social media.
The most shocking passages have to do with Britney’s mental health issues and her alleged behavior toward her sons, Sean Preston, 20, and Jayden James, 19.
“They would awaken sometimes at night to find her standing silently in the doorway, watching them sleep — ‘Oh, you’re awake?’ — with a knife in her hand,” Federline writes, adding:
Musician Britney Spears and husband Kevin Federline arrive at the 2004 Billboard Music Awards at the MGM Grand Garden Arena on December 8, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images)
“Then she’d turn around and pad off without explanation.”
That incident occurred when the kids were much younger, but Federline says his concerns are as strong as ever, as he believes that Spears’ mental health has deteriorated in the years since her conservatorship came to an end.
Federline says Spears’ situation has gotten worse in recent years
“The truth is, this situation with Britney feels like it’s racing toward something irreversible. It’s become impossible to pretend everything’s OK,” he writes.
Musicians Britney Spears and Kevin Federline arrive at the 2006 Grammy Nominees party with Kanye West, hosted By Verizon Wireless and Rolling Stone Magazine at the Avalon Hollywood, on February 6, 2005 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Matthew Simmons/Getty Images for Rolling Stone)
“From where I sit, the clock is ticking, and we’re getting close to the 11th hour. Something bad is going to happen if things don’t change, and my biggest fear is that our sons will be left holding the pieces.”
Spears’ social media content has often created concern among fans in recent years. But for the most part, those concerns have been for Britney’s well-being, not for the people around her.
Federline and his sons relocated to Hawaii in 2023, and for a time, Britney’s contact with the boys was minimal.
These days, she appears to be on better terms with Sean and Jayden, but clearly, their father is uncomfortable with the situation.
We won’t know the whole story until Kevin’s book is released, but we’d guess that Britney’s legal team is ready to take action at a moment’s notice.
We’ll have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
