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.
Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes got together under controversial circumstances.
But they now plan on remaining together for life.
The former GMA3: What You Need to Know anchor and journalist confirmed their engagement on the October 14 episode of their Amy & T.J. podcast.
(Yes, apparently these two also have a podcast.)
T.J. Holmes and Amy Robach attend iHeartRadio z100’s Jingle Ball 2024 Presented By Capital One at Madison Square Garden on December 13, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for iHeartRadio)
“We are sharing with all of you that we are engaged and we’ve been engaged for just about a month now,” Robach told listeners, while her husband-to-be added:
“We wanted to let you all know before anybody else was able to. We’ve learned that lesson, I guess, in the past about our relationship.”
Holmes then quipped how his fiancée had been “dangling a ring in everybody’s face every chance you could, and nobody said a word.”
“I was in three massive football stadiums three weekends in a row, wearing my engagement ring very proudly, very excitedly, and kept waiting for somebody to point it out or ask me, ‘Hey, what’s that?’ And it never happened,” Robach said.
T.J. Holmes and Amy Robach attend iHeartRadio 102.7 KIIS FM’s Jingle Ball 2023 Presented by Capital One at The Kia Forum on December 1, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Jesse Grant/Getty Images for iHeartRadio)
Back in late 2022, photos went viral of Robach and Holmes looking quite cozy… while they were married to Andrew Shue and Marilee Fiebig, respectively.
Just a few weeks later, the couple were officially axed from their jobs at ABC amid the alleged cheating scandal.
Both insiders and the celebrities themselves, however, have sworn that these marriages were over and everyone was living separately when the relationship started.
To the pair’s credit (we guess?), they appear to have fallen truly in love and rumors of an engagement have been swirling for months and months.
On this new podcast, the polarizing stars promised to share some details about “how it all went down” at a later date. In the meantime, they said they have “just been celebrating with family.”
T.J. Holmes and Amy Robach attend iHeartRadio z100’s Jingle Ball 2024 Presented By Capital One at Madison Square Garden on December 13, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for iHeartRadio)
One month before announcing their engagement to the world, Robach and Holmes got honest about the possibility of expanding their family.
“I don’t know what’s going on, but we have talked more lately about having kids. We have talked more lately about the idea of even adopting a child and usually it’s me bringing it up to you,” Holmes told Robach on their podcast in September.
“Usually the response is the one you all just heard. She laughs at me. She’s laughing at me.”
Separately, in February, Robach said she’s looking forward to an “intimate” wedding, adding:
if I had to pick, I’d pick eloping and going to Fiji or somewhere really nice and far away.”
A man who scaled an iron security fence in the middle of the night, eluded police and used beer bottles filled with gasoline to ignite the occupied Pennsylvania governor’s mansion pleaded guilty Tuesday to attempted murder and other charges.
Cody Balmer, 38, also entered pleas to terrorism, 22 counts of arson, aggravated arson, burglary, aggravated assault of Gov. Josh Shapiro, 21 counts of reckless endangerment and loitering in the April 13 attack that did millions of dollars in damage to the state-owned brick building.
Under a plea deal, Balmer was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison.
Shapiro and members of his family had to be awakened and evacuated, but no one was injured. The multiple endangerment charges reflected the number of people in the residence at the time, including the governor’s family, guests and state troopers.
The fire was set hours after they celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover with a Seder in the residence. Prosecutors played video clips that showed Molotov cocktails going off and a figure inside and outside the residence. Judge Deborah Curcillo called the video “horrific” and “very frightening.”
Balmer told police he planned to beat Shapiro with a small sledgehammer if he had encountered him after breaking into the building, according to court documents. Balmer turned himself in the next afternoon to face charges of attempted homicide, terrorism, aggravated arson and aggravated assault.
Police say Balmer broke in through the southern wing of the residence, into a room often used to entertain crowds and display art. Investigators recovered two broken glass beer bottles containing gasoline. The fire charred walls, tables, buffet serving dishes, plates and a piano. Window panes and brick around doors and windows were also damaged.
Shapiro’s Jewish faith and the attack during the Passover weekend raised questions about Balmer’s motivation, but Balmer told The Associated Press in a May letter from jail that had not been a factor in his decision.
“He can be Jewish, Muslim, or a purple people eater for all I care and as long as he leaves me and mine alone,” Balmer wrote.
He said in a brief June 9 video interview from Camp Hill State Prison that he did think beforehand about whether children might be injured.
“Does anyone ever consider children?” Balmer said in June. “It doesn’t seem that way. I sure as hell did. I’m glad no one got hurt.” Asked why he felt Shapiro had somehow done him wrong, Balmer replied: “I’m not going to answer that.”
Balmer’s mother said days after his arrest that she had tried to get him assistance for mental health issues, but “nobody would help.” Court proceedings had been delayed while he received mental health treatment, his lawyer has said.
At a court hearing a few days after the fire, Balmer told a judge he was an unemployed welder with no income or savings and “a lot of children.”
The residence, built in 1968, did not have sprinklers. Work to fix the damage and to bolster its security features continues.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries met in a Zoom meeting with members of the Illinois congressional delegation Monday to talk about redistricting in the state — an effort that is already triggering concern among lawmakers who fear the changes could dilute Black political power.
No maps were shown to the group but some versions of boundaries have been shared during individual conversations, according to one person in the meeting who was granted anonymity to speak freely.
“It’s what you’d expect. They’re trying to get another district,” the person said, adding that Republican Rep. Mary Miller’s downstate district appears to be the target. Miller is one of three Republicans in the 17-member delegation.
Redistricting talk is raising concern that adjusting congressional boundaries could dilute Black communities in districts, thereby undermining Black political influence.
“At what cost do you try to get one more seat? How many more do you put in jeopardy?” said another person on the call who was also granted anonymity to speak about a private meeting.
The implications go beyond Illinois. As national Democrats look ahead to the 2026 and 2028 election cycles, there’s pressure to find winnable seats in Republican-dominated districts. Any redistricting effort in Illinois would come before the midterms in an effort to counter Republicans’ push for more favorable maps to keep the House.
Jeffries sees Illinois and Maryland as states that could pick up Democrats, according to one of the people in Monday’s meeting.
A few weeks ago during a visit to Springfield, Jeffries acknowledged the push to get more seats in some states, including Illinois. President Donald Trump wants to “rig the midterms,” he told POLITICO. “Democrats will respond in self-defense of the American people.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker didn’t immediately return a request for comment, but he previously has not ruled out congressional redistricting. “None of us want to do it. None of us want to go through a redistricting process. But if we’re forced to, it’s something we’ll consider doing,” he said in a recent interview.
The Illinois General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats in both chambers, would have to vote on any new maps.
After the 2020 census, Democrats redrew district maps to adjust for losing a seat because of population decline. They cut out two Republican incumbents and created a new district favoring their party. The state’s congressional delegation now includes 14 Democrats and three Republicans from deeply conservative areas of the state.
Regardless of the political dynamics, candidates have until Nov. 3 to file for congressional races, meaning any revised map would need to be finalized before that deadline.
Election attorneys in Illinois say the Legislature can make adjustments to accommodate new boundaries.
“The main complication is that currently, each district has a different signature requirement, based on the number of votes cast in that district in the last primary,” said election lawyer Michael Dorf, whose past clients include the Democratic Party of Illinois and several statewide officials. “But the Legislature could revert to the standard used in the first election following a redistricting, where every congressional candidate just needs 600 signatures.”
So far, leaders in the Illinois House and Senate say there are no ongoing talks about altering the current map. But it could come up in caucus meetings today when lawmakers return for a legislative session to take up new bills and address potential vetoes.
“We haven’t seen any maps. We haven’t had any conversations with our members about maps,” House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch said in a statement when asked Monday whether his caucus would be addressing the issue.
Illinois House Republican Leader Tony McCombie said “it would be obscene” for Illinois Democrats “to erase” any Republican-held seats given Trump won 44 percent of the statewide vote.
