The UK is “really unprepared” to fight a war and has been living on a “mirage” of military strength that was shocking to discover, interviews with almost every defence secretary since the end of the Cold War have revealed.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
AP- Costco is joining other companies that aren’t waiting to see whether the Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump’s most sweeping import taxes. They’re going to court to demand refunds on the tariffs they’ve paid.
The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled earlier this year that Trump’s biggest and boldest import taxes are illegal. The case is now before the Supreme Court. In a Nov. 5 hearing, several of the high court’s justices expressed doubts that the president had sweeping power to declare national emergencies to impose tariffs on goods from almost every country on earth.
If the court strikes down the tariffs, importers may be entitled to refunds on the levies they’ve paid. “It’s uncertain whether refunds will be granted and, if so, how much,” said Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. ”But the possibility has prompted many companies — including Costco — to file actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade to get in line, so to speak, for potential refunds.”
In a complaint filed last week with the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, Costco said it is demanding the money back now “to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized.″ The operator of warehouse-sized stores expressed concern that it could not get a refund once the tariff bills have have gone through liquidation by Customs and Border Protection, a process Costco says will start Dec. 15.
Revlon and canned seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods have made similar arguments in the trade court.
The tariffs facing the court challenged have raised around $90 billion so far. Trump warned back in August that the loss of his tariffs would destroy that American economy and lead to “1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!”
By: Will Steinfeld, Chilkat Valley News and James Brooks Alaska Beacon
This article was reported and published in collaboration between the Chilkat Valley News and the Alaska Beacon.
Skagway’s former paramedic is alleging wrongdoing by the Southeast Alaska town, saying in a newly filed lawsuit that she was illegally fired after submitting a grievance against the city’s fire chief and deputy fire chief.
In a lawsuit filed Nov. 20 at Juneau Superior Court, Samantha Philemon — the town’s lone licensed paramedic for much of her employment since 2023 — alleges she was fired due to disputes over recordkeeping and the department’s decision to purchase an all-terrain vehicle known as an Argo.
According to Philemon’s complaint, at the time of her firing, Skagway officials said she was being let go due to violations of HIPAA, the federal medical-privacy law. Philemon’s attorney says in the complaint that the accusation “was a sham.”
Philemon filed a formal complaint against the chief and deputy and was fired by Skagway’s deputy borough administrator the day after the complaint was resolved.
“We’re excited to have our day in court, so to speak, and we think that a jury who hears Sam’s story is going to do the right thing and understand what happened here, and we’re just looking for this to never happen again,” said her attorney, Miye D’Oench of the Anchorage-based Northern Justice Project.
Philemon said her firing has left Skagway, a town of roughly 1,100 year-round residents, without a trained paramedic.
“There are firefighters with EMT 1 and EMT 2 and some (EMT) 3 training, but there are no paramedics, and that harms the community because paramedics are trained and licensed to do things that EMTs are not,” she said.
Neither Fire Chief Emily Rauscher nor Borough Manager Emily Deach responded to requests for an interview that would allow them to respond to Philemon’s complaint.
The borough denied a public records request by the Chilkat Valley News. Robert Blasco, the city’s hired attorney, did not return messages left at his office on Friday and Monday.
Philemon moved from Mississippi to Skagway in 2023, she said, and enjoyed working with the department at first.
“I wanted to be between the mountains and the ocean,” she said.
According to the complaint, she encouraged a friend to work for the department this past summer, but when he arrived, he was told his position had funding for only one week. Philemon believed that was because the department had recently purchased an Argo.
When she raised the issue, according to the complaint, “Rauscher and Mead then turned on Ms. Philemon,” and “began silencing and excluding her from department business.” There were additional disputes about medical procedures performed by the fire department and accounting at the department..
Philemon submitted a formal grievance to the borough manager in July. The manager, Emily Deach, said in an August memo that Skagway “will take action to address the behavior and prevent reoccurrence” as well as take steps toward formalizing fire department training.
“The actions of the department supervisors do not require termination of those supervisors, as
you requested verbally,” Deach wrote to Philemon.
Philemon, who had been placed on administrative leave while the grievance was investigated, was ordered to return to work under a separate plan. She objected, concerned that she would be returning to work under the same supervisors and conditions as before, and appealed to a committee that included the Skagway Mayor.
The committee upheld Deach’s work on Sept. 10. Philemon planned to return to work, but the deputy borough manager fired her the following day.
Philemon said she’s been looking for work since then but hasn’t found success.
“I’m looking for a new job after being fired from a job that I never wanted to leave. I’m devastated because I love my job, and I love Skagway,” Philemon said.
Online court records show the case has been referred to Judge Amy Welch. No additional proceedings have yet been scheduled.
By: Yereth Rosen, Alaska Beacon
John Crowther, who stepped in as acting commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources last month after John Boyle, the previous commissioner, resigned abruptly, is the governor’s choice for the more permanent position.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy announced Friday he will ask the Legislature to confirm Crowther as the commissioner once the 2026 session gets underway.
“John Crowther brings a deep understanding of Alaska’s natural resources and a proven commitment to responsible stewardship. His balanced approach to development and conservation makes him an exceptional choice to lead the Department of Natural Resources and serve the long-term interests of Alaskans,” Dunleavy said in a statement.
Crowther is a department veteran, having joined DNR in 2012. Prior to being named acting commissioner, he served as deputy commissioner managing the department’s oil and gas project permitting and geological survey divisions.
After his first years working for DNR, Crowther served from late 2017 to January 2019 as Alaska’s director of state and federal relations under then-Gov. Bill Walker, according to his professional biography. From January 2019 to January 2021, he served as a U.S. Senate Natural Resources Committee aide to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. After that, he returned to DNR, the governor’s statement said.
“The Department’s constitutional mission to develop, conserve and maximize the use of Alaska’s natural resources is critical to our state,” Crowther said in the governor’s statement. “I will continue working as hard as I can to advance this mission and improve Alaska’s future through stewardship and responsible use of our resources. I am honored and humbled to accept the Governor’s designation and enthusiastic to lead the dedicated professionals of DNR.”
Crowther is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Georgetown University Law School.
AP- A recent survey finds 81% of Americans show love for family and friends by preparing holiday dishes, but there’s always one dish at Christmas that tests how polite your family is. Someone’s one forkful away from blessing the cook’s heart, but nobody dares to leave that recipe off the menu. It might be a wobbly mold of aspic with floating shrimp, a salad that doesn’t contain a single leaf of lettuce or a fruitcake packed with neon cherries and nuts so dense it could double as a doorstop.
It’s probably not as bad as Aunt Bethany’s crispy cat food congealed salad from “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation,” but it still gets a few side-eyes and maybe even a small gag from the kids who have to take a bite.
No one is entirely sure who started the tradition, but it stuck. Christmas wouldn’t feel complete without it. The dish may not win any awards, but it earns its place through sheer persistence. It outlasts trendy desserts, fancy sides and every attempt to modernize the holiday spread.
What makes a recipe weird
A weird Christmas recipe isn’t always outrageous. Sometimes it’s just a dish that doesn’t quite fit. It might be sweet when everything else is savory or built from ingredients that shouldn’t go together. These recipes often come from old cookbooks and church potlucks: lime Jell-O with cottage cheese, cranberry molds shaped like wreaths or even a tomato soup cake. Dishes that were once modern and exciting now sit somewhere between nostalgic and highly questionable.
In the 1950s and 1960s, home cooks embraced new products like canned fruit, instant pudding, gelatin and every version of cream-of-whatever soup. These products represented convenience and creativity. A pie made with saltine crackers or a casserole bound by condensed soup was considered inventive at the time.
Aspic, a savory gelatin made with meat stock, was once considered elegant enough for dinner parties. Cookbooks from the early 20th century featured versions with chicken, eggs, seafood and vegetables suspended in translucent layers. What once signaled sophistication now makes people cringe, yet a few families still set it out every December because it’s what they’ve always done.
“The holidays always include spaghetti in my family, but with a secret ingredient,” says Ashley Wali of Wanderlux. “We add grape jelly to the tomato sauce, and while it sounds crazy, you just get the sweetness and no fruit flavor. My cousin asked for the recipe just the other day!”
Why it stays on the menu
Some recipes are harder to get rid of than tinsel. They show up every Christmas, no matter what’s on the menu. Someone hangs the ornaments while Dad curses the tangled lights, and someone else digs through old recipe cards, trying to remember which casserole dish belongs to which story.
Michelle Price of Honest and Truly says, “We have salad for every Christmas dinner, except it’s a marshmallow salad. We call it Marguerite salad for my grandmother, who instituted the tradition, and anyone who comes to Christmas dinner who didn’t grow up with it always looks at it askance. But Christmas dinner wouldn’t be complete without this sitting on the plate next to our mashed potatoes and ham and green beans. Of course, marshmallows and pineapple and maraschino cherries pair perfectly with that!”
It’s a habit, but it’s also comforting. And it’s good for a laugh. Every family has a running joke or two, and the weird recipe gives you something to talk about between the standing rib roast and the chocolate fudge pie. There’s always one relative who takes a second helping, one who politely avoids it and one who swears it tastes better this year.
Anyone who marries into the family learns quickly that this dish is a rite of passage. You take a scoop, smile bravely and pretend it’s delicious. It’s a kind of holiday hazing everyone endures once before earning the right to roll their eyes next year like the rest of the family.
Regional quirks
Three out of four Americans prefer traditional holiday dishes. It’s no wonder a few strange ones have stuck around. Once a recipe becomes part of the family, it’s hard to cross it off the list. Every time someone suggests replacing it, another person declares, “We can’t have Christmas without that.”
In the South, there’s pear salad made from canned pear halves topped with mayonnaise, shredded cheddar and a cherry in the middle. In the Midwest, cookie salad blurs the line between dessert and side dish with pudding, whipped topping and crushed cookies. Some New England tables feature molded cranberry salad with nuts, while parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio favor ham loaf baked in a sticky, sweet glaze.
The stories that stick
Every odd Christmas recipe has a story. Some were pulled from a magazine decades ago and somehow became permanent. Others came from a church cookbook or a neighbor’s potluck dish that everyone pretended to like, and the tradition just stuck.
Most of the time, the recipe is tied to a person more than to taste. It might have been your grandmother’s creation or your dad’s yearly experiment. Before long, it’s not really about the food at all. It’s about remembering where it came from and who brought it to the table in the first place.
That’s how these dishes last. They hang on through the stories that go with them. They remind us of the people who came before and the meals that felt the same, no matter how much else changed. That small connection matters more than the recipe itself.
Keeping the weird stuff on the table
What to do when it’s your turn to host and you want to make changes to that weird family recipe? Go ahead and swap in fresh fruit or ditch the gelatin if you want, but don’t try to fancy it up too much. Half the charm is that it’s a little ridiculous, and everyone knows it. You don’t want to miss an opportunity for someone to say, “Is that Great Aunt Edith’s chicken cherry Jell-O salad?”
Set it out proudly and tell the story. Let people laugh and take pictures. Someone will take a spoonful, and someone else will ask for the recipe, even if they don’t really want it. That old recipe may never be your favorite, but it’s part of your family’s Christmas. It has survived generations of teasing and still shows up every year. That alone is reason enough to keep it.
Lucy Brewer is a professional writer and fourth-generation Southern cook who founded Southern Food and Fun. She’s passionate about preserving classic Southern recipes while creating easy, crowd-pleasing dishes for the modern home cook. Lucy currently lives in Augusta, Ga.
When the framers of what became the U.S. Constitution set out to draft the rules of our government on a hot, humid day in the summer of 1787, debates over details raged on.
But one thing the men agreed on was the power of a new, representative legislative branch. Article I – the first one, after all – details the awesome responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the Senate: power to levy taxes, fund the government, declare war, impeach justices and presidents, and approve treaties, among many, many others.
In comparison, Article II, detailing the responsibilities of the president, and Article III, detailing the Supreme Court, are rather brief – further deferring to the preferred branch, Congress, for actual policymaking.
At the helm of this new legislative centerpiece, there was only one leadership requirement: The House of Representatives must select a speaker of the House.
The position, modeled after parliamentary leaders in the British House of Commons, was meant to act as a nonpartisan moderator and referee. The framers famously disliked political parties, and they knew the importance of building coalitions to solve the young nation’s vast policy problems.
But this idealistic vision for leadership quickly dissolved.
The current speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, holds a position that has strayed dramatically from this nonpartisan vision. Today, the leadership role is far more than legislative manager – it is a powerful, party-centric position that controls nearly every aspect of House activity.
And while most speakers have used their tenure to strengthen the position and the power of Congress as a whole, Johnson’s choice to lead by following President Donald Trump drifts the position even further from the framers’ vision of congressional primacy.
By the early 1800s, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, first elected speaker in 1810 as a member of the Whig Party, used the position to pursue personal policy goals, most notably entry into the War of 1812 against Great Britain.
Speaker Thomas Reed continued this trend by enacting powerful procedures in 1890 that allowed his Republican majority party to steamroll opposition in the legislative process.
In 1899, Speaker David Henderson created a Republican “cabinet” of new chamber positions that directly answered to – and owed their newly elevated positions to – him.
In the 20th century, in an attempt to further control the legislation Congress considered, reformers solidified the speaker’s power over procedure and party. Speaker Joseph Cannon, a Republican who ascended to the position in 1903, commandeered the powerful Rules Committee, which allowed speakers to control not only which legislation received a vote but even the amending and voting process.
At the other end of the 20th century was an effort to retool the position into a fully partisan role. After being elected speaker in 1995, Republican Newt Gingrich expanded the responsibilities of the office beyond handling legislation by centralizing resources in the office of the speaker. Gingrich grew the size of leadership staff – and prevented policy caucuses from hiring their own. He controlled the flow of information from committee chairs to rank-and-file members, and even directed access to congressional activity by C-SPAN, the public service broadcaster that provides coverage of Congress.
As a result, the modern speaker of the House now plays a powerful role in the development and passage of legislation – a dynamic that scholars refer to as the “centralization” of Congress.
Part of this is out of necessity: The House in particular, with 435 members, requires someone to, well, lead. And as America has grown in population, economic power and the size of government, the policy problems Congress tackles have become more complex, making this job all the more important.
But the position that began as coalition-building has evolved into controlling the floor schedule and flow of information and coordinating and commandeering committee work. My work on Congress has also documented how leaders invoke their power to dictate constituent communication for members of their party and use campaign finance donations to bolster party loyalty.
This centralization has cemented the responsibilities of the speaker within the chamber. More importantly, it has elevated the speaker to a national party figure.
Some successful leaders have been able to translate these advantages to pass major party priorities: Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from Texas, began his tenure in 1940 and was the longest-serving speaker of the House, ultimately working with eight different presidents.
Under Rayburn’s leadership, Congress passed incredible projects, including the Marshall Plan to fund recovery and reconstruction in postwar Western Europe, and legislation to develop and construct the Interstate Highway System.
In the modern era, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and the first and only female speaker, began her tenure in 2007 and held together a diverse Democratic coalition to pass the Affordable Care Act into law.
But as the role of speaker has become one of proactive party leader, rather than passive chamber manager, not all speakers have been able to keep their party happy.
John Boehner, a Republican who became speaker in 2011, was known for his procedural expertise and diplomatic skills. But he ultimately resigned after he relied on a bipartisan coalition to end a government shutdown in 2014 and avert financial crises, causing his support among his party to plummet.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted in 2023 from the position by his own Republican Party after working with Democratic members to fund the government and maintain Congress’ power of the purse.
Although these decisions angered the party, they symbolized the enduring nature of the position’s intention: the protector of Article I powers. Speakers have used their growing array of policy acumen, procedural advantages and congressional resources to navigate the chamber through immense policy challenges, reinforcing Article I responsibilities – from levying taxes to reforming major programs that affect every American – that other branches simply could not ignore.
In short, a strengthened party leader has often strengthened Congress as a whole.
Although Johnson, the current speaker, inherited one of the most well-resourced speaker offices in U.S. history, he faces a dilemma in his position: solving enormous national policy challenges while managing an unruly party bound by loyalty to a leader outside of the chamber.
Johnson’s recent decision to keep Congress out of session for eight weeks during the entirety of the government shutdown indicates a balance of deference tilted toward party over the responsibilities of a powerful Congress.
This eight-week absence severely weakened the chamber. Not being in session meant no committee meetings, and thus, no oversight; no appropriations bills passed, and thus, more deference to executive-branch funding decisions; and no policy debates or formal declarations of war, and thus, domestic and foreign policy alike being determined by unelected bureaucrats and appointed judges.
Unfortunately for frustrated House members and their constituents, beyond new leadership, there is little recourse.
While the gradual, powerful concentration of authority has made the speaker’s office more responsive to party and national demands alike, it has also left the chamber dependent on the speaker to safeguard the power of the People’s House.
SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor 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.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
New York’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, campaigned on a promise to raise the city’s income tax on its richest residents from 3.9% to 5.9%. Combined with the state income tax, which is 10.9% for the top bracket, the increase would cement the city’s position as having the highest taxes on top earners in the country.
It set off a chorus of warnings about the tax flight of the city’s wealthiest residents.
Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman claimed that both the city’s businesses and wealthy residents “have already started making arrangements for the exits.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul echoed the concern, opposing the proposal “because we cannot have them leave the state.” Before the election, Mamdani’s opponent, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, joked that if Mamdani won, “even I will move to Florida.”
I research whether high earners actually move when their taxes go up. My colleagues and I have analyzed millionaire taxes in New Jersey and California, the migration of Forbes billionaires globally and decades of IRS data tracing where Americans with million-dollar incomes live.
Top earners are often thought of as “mobile millionaires” who are ever searching for lower-tax places to live. In reality, they’re often reluctant to leave the places where they built their careers and raised their families.
At the same time, there are grains of truth in the tax migration arguments, so it’s important to carefully parse the evidence.
The first fact is simple: Millionaires have low migration rates.
Mobility in America is highest among people who are still searching for their economic place in life. Workers who earn the lowest wages move across state lines at relatively high rates, about 4.5% per year, often in search of more affordable housing. People making $1 million-plus a year move only half as often: Just 2.4% of them pack up each year.
When millionaires do move, it rarely appears to be for tax reasons. For example, Florida is the top destination for New York movers in general. But among the richest 1% of New Yorkers, the top destination is Connecticut, followed by New Jersey and California, all three of which levy a millionaire tax.
Some millionaires certainly do favor lower-tax destinations. But many moves to low-tax states are offset by moves in the opposite direction to higher-tax states, and many other moves take place between states that have the same tax rate.
Overall, only about 15% of millionaires who move end up with a lower tax bill. That shows the rich are willing and able to move for tax reasons. But because only about 2.4% of millionaires move each year – and only a fraction of those moves reduce their taxes – overall tax migration ends up being a small fraction of a small fraction. Not never, but not often.
Migration is mostly a young person’s game.
The most mobile Americans are recent college graduates who are brimming with potential, searching for work and unburdened by major responsibilities. Their rate of migration from one state to another is over 12%, more than four times the rate of millionaires.
The typical adult mover is about 30 years old, while the highest income earners are typically about 50. People choose where to build their careers and families decades before they reach their peak earnings phase.
By the time someone earns enough to be taxed in the highest brackets, they’re usually late into their careers. They are almost always married, often have children at home, own their homes and, in many cases, own a business. Their social lives and their economic success are linked to local networks of colleagues, clients and connections built up over a long career. Moving away from those networks means giving up a great deal of social capital and starting over somewhere new.
Top earners know that some states have lower taxes, but for most, tax flight is simply a bad deal. The social and economic costs of uprooting are bigger than the tax savings.
Two recent events showed why the rich generally stay where they are – and what it takes to move them.
The first was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in late 2017. The tax reform package capped the federal deduction for state and local taxes and raised taxes on high earners in states like New York, New Jersey and California. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “So Long, California. Sayonara, New York,” economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore predicted that 800,000 people a year would flee those states.
They didn’t. A colleague and I studied every millionaire tax return in the country for two years before and after the reform. Nothing happened. There was no increase in migration out of the states where tax burdens rose. The predicted exodus simply did not occur.
We were about to wrap up the study and call it case closed. Then something unexpected did happen: In early 2020, millionaires began leaving high-tax states in large numbers. Low-tax states saw no comparable outflows. The pattern matched those tax-flight predictions from just a few years earlier.
It was the COVID-19 pandemic, and it brought a profound shock to the social lives of city residents.
Offices emptied out, with entry swipes in major cities dropping by nearly 90%. Time spent at work fell sharply, local amenities were shuttered, and time spent alone grew as in-person contact became a health risk. K–12 schools closed, disrupting children’s relationships with teachers and classmates.
For many households, this was also a strange form of freedom, and a chance to rethink the geography of work and life, especially for top earners who could work remotely from anywhere. Disconnected from the bonds of place, top earners moved and clearly favored low-tax destinations.
The lesson is that social lives and economic policies are deeply intertwined. The 2017 tax reform had no effect on migration because the social cost of moving is high – especially for people at the peak of their careers who are enjoying the many social benefits of economic success. As long as those connections to others are strong, they outweigh the appeal of moving to lower-tax states.
When the pandemic broke apart so much of social life, the ledger shifted. If your office, school, friendships and daily routines no longer anchor you in place, what is keeping you in a high-tax place?
But by early 2023, as social and economic life returned to normal, we found that millionaire migration patterns mostly reverted to their prepandemic baselines.
In other words, the surge in tax flight was temporary.
There is a big lesson here for state and city policies.
Every place wants to attract high-income earners and the spending power and tax dollars that accompany their salaries. Many policymakers think that tax cuts will lure them in, but this is mostly a fool’s errand. In normal times, the rich are deeply rooted and not movable.
The real opportunity lies in attracting and retaining the next generation of top earners – young people who are unattached to place and looking for opportunities to build their careers and their lives. Places that draw young professionals build the pipeline of future top earners.
Those early-career folks are mobile, but they are not thinking about the top tax rate. Their salaries are low. They are trying to find good jobs, pay the rent, form relationships and start families. They hope to be successful enough to one day be paying Mamdani’s millionaire tax. For the time being, though, they need the basic costs of living to be manageable. Soon they will need affordable child care and good public schools for their kids.
If the city helps them that far along, many of them would gladly pay a millionaire tax when and if the time comes. In this light, the Mamdani plan is simply practical: Higher taxes at the top support the services and quality of life that keep the next generation in the city.
Cristobal Young received funding from the Russell Sage Foundation and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth in support of this research project.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Are Alix Earle and Braxton Berrios still together or broken up?
After a certain Australian hottie danced his way to victory on the Dancing With The Stars finale, viewers couldn’t help but notice that someone was missing.
Finalist and TikTok star Alix’s man was a no-show for the finale.
What’s going on?
On the Tuesday night before Thanksgiving, beloved Aussie Robert Irwin took home the Mirrorball trophy.
While he and Whitney Carson dazzled audiences, their fellow finalists — including Alix Earle — danced their booties off, as well.
Naturally, viewers wondered why Braxton Berrios wasn’t there to watch Alix Earle dance to Nelly Furtado’s absolute banger, “Maneater.”
He wasn’t there for her final and perhaps most important night in Season 34. If she’d won, he’d have missed it.
That could be a hint at a breakup. And that’s exactly what Alix’s fans asked her about as soon as they got the chance.
@alixearle Thank you Val for creating my dream dance 🥹 wouldn’t have wanted to end the season any other way!!
Over Thanksgiving weekend, Alix took to her TikTok — which is also her claim to fame — to post a Get Ready With Me.
Her goal was to give a debrief to fans about the DWTS finale.
However, one eye-catching question emerged.
“Ugh I hope u and Braxton are still together,” a fan expressed in the comments below the video.
Alix clearly saw it, realized that this follower was not the only one to share this anxiety, and decided to clear the air.
As you can see, Alix Earle explained why Braxton Berrios was absent from the Dancing With The Stars finale audience.
“He couldn’t come bc of football :(,” she explained.
If you’re thinking that it’s awful for a man to miss something like this over a sportsball game, you’re valid — but you’re missing a key detail.
Alix doesn’t mean that Braxton stayed home to watch a football game on television.
Braxton is a professional football player for the NFL. His team is called the Houston Texans.
@alixearle Sorry for the long rant ,, but love u guys 💕💕💕💕
Internet research tells us that Braxton was playing a home game (that is, in Houston) against the Buffalo Bills on November 20.
Then, on the following Sunday, his team faced off against the Indianapolis Colts.
Neither of those were the November 25 finale date, but Braxton likely had professional obligations to participate in practices and to generally be a good teammate.
Many of us have learned a great deal about football since Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce first hit things off. One of those things is that football takes place multiple days a week, and apparently extends with a “pre-season” and a “post-season.”
This means that the partners of professional football players likely understand that, in addition to nationwide attention and CTE horrors, schedule disruptions for many months out of the year are simply part of the price.
To be clear, Braxton Berrios did cheer on Alix Earle on November 25.
It just wasn’t in person. Instead, he showered her with love and support by way of a prerecorded video.
“I’ve watched you pour everything into this since the moment it has started, and I think it shows,” Braxton praised.
He told Alix: “Good luck. Have fun, babe.”
Sometimes, a true bond means understanding that being physically there for every event isn’t possible — and isn’t as important as feeling secure in your relationship.
Alix Earle & Braxton Berrios: Still Together or Broken Up? was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
We have an update on the pending divorce between Kandi Burruss and Todd Tucker.
As previously reported, the Bravo personality and her husband of 11 years have decided to go their separate ways.
“After deep thought and a lot of prayer, I’ve made the decision to move forward with a divorce.
“This is a difficult and emotional time, but my focus remains on protecting my peace, being the best mother I can be, and co-parenting with love and respect,” Burruss said in a statement on November 21.
From what we can gather, things remain amicable between the exes — but maybe not for long?
Last Wednesday, Tucker filed a response to the divorce petition in which he said he and his estranged wife’s two kids are currently in his care and residing with him in Georgia, while Burruss handles “out-of-state work obligations.”
(The exes share a son Ace, born in 2016, and a daughter Blaze, born in 2019.)
Tucker added Burruss’ work obligations, “will continue to require her to be away from the children for at least the next several months,” making his case for why he deserves primary custody. If it comes to that.
To be clear, “the parties have been working cooperatively in an effort to resolve all issues, and [Tucker] remains committed to continuing those discussions in good faith,” the legal responds reads, according to Us Weekly.
While the parties negotiate, if they cannot arrive at a settlement, Tucker is just making it known now that he will be seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody and final decision-making authority.
The estranged spouses met while filming the fourth season of The Real Housewives of Atlanta in 2011 and then exchanged vows in April 2014, blending their families at the time… which included Kandi’s daughter Riley, 23, with ex Russell Spencer; and Todd’s daughter Kaela, 29, with ex Keema Parker.
Aside from helping to anchor the aforementioned franchise, the pair also gave fans an inside look at their lives on the 2022 spinoff Bravo series Kandi & The Gang.
Elsewhere in his official response, Tucker praised Burruss as a mother — and also confessed that he signed a prenuptial agreement before over a decade ago, but suggested he was pressured into signing it without his attorneys around.
“These circumstances raise substantial questions concerning the enforceability of said document,” he now says.
“Nevertheless, [Tucker] remains committed to working in good faith to resolve this matter amicably and privately to the extent possible.”
In her filing, Burruss said the marriage was “irretrievably broken” with “no reasonable hope for reconciliation.”
She concluded via social media last week:
“I’m stepping into a new chapter pouring into my work, my family, and my own growth. I’m grateful to everyone who supported us throughout the years, and I ask for privacy, grace, and understanding as we navigate this transition with our family.”
Todd Tucker Demands Primary Custody from Kandi Burruss as Part of Divorce was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Rihanna is wowing fans with jaw-dropping baby bump pics.
No one does pregnancy like RiRi.
Back in September, Rihanna welcomed her third child with rapper A$AP Rocky.
Check out these stunning pregnancy pics. Her maternity fashion is without parallel.
Over Thanksgiving weekend, Rihanna put all of her thanks on display with an Instagram photo album.
The throwback photos featured numerous looks at her pregnant body.
Rihanna’s baby bump was impossible to miss — especially when she wore only a bikini and maternity jewelry.
By that, we mean a long belly chain that sparkles in the sunlight.
Obviously, the singer has been gorgeous every day of her life. But her pregnancy photos (and accompanying fashion) have been consistently next-level.
In fact, fans have long admired Rihanna’s sense of maternity style.
Her first pregnancy was back in 2022.
The baby bump pics, the fashion, the snaps that she shared to social media were all entirely on point.
Some folks very understandably pick a look and stick with it throughout a pregnancy.
But, in Rihanna’s case, she has worn layered open-front looks, dazzlingly sheer tops, and of course bejeweled tummy looks.
Just a reminder: these are throwback photos.
Rihanna is not currently pregnant. It would be medically inadvisable for her to become pregnant until some time in 2027.
The singer gave birth to her third child, Rocki Irish Mayers, on September 13, 2025.
These images are throwback snaps.
As you might surmise from the scope of Rihanna’s baby bump, many are specifically from this past summer.
However, these photos were largely unreleased.
These never-before-seen glimpses at Rihanna are jaw-dropping and highlight her profound sense of style.
Remember, Rihanna is not only a phenomenal singer and a skilled actress.
She also built a beauty business that made her a billionaire. Understanding fashion has to go with the territory.
(RiRi is also a 90 Day Fiance superfan, but that is neither here nor there)
Though Rihanna’s delightful baby bump photodump came over Thanksgiving weekend, she had a different national celebration in mind.
Sunday was Barbados’ 59th year of independence from Great Britain.
It was also the country’s 4th year as a republic.
(Did you know that independence from England is the most popular non-religious holiday in the world?)
So Rihanna had a lot to celebrate — personally and patriotically.
Rihanna Dazzles Fans with Pregnancy Photos, Reigns Supreme Over Maternity Fashion was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
