Several victims of Jeffrey Epstein have told Sky News that the incomplete release of the files relating to the dead paedophile financier have left them feeling shocked, outraged and disappointed.The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
According to our recent survey of officials in Michigan communities, local democracy is humming along and city hall is taking care of business.
The federal government was shut down in October and November 2025, but cities and towns around the United States continued to fill potholes, purify drinking water, respond to emergency calls and issue construction permits, mostly with little fanfare.
But Michiganders should not take this local resilience for granted. Officials – especially in rural communities – are also raising some red flags about declining public engagement, deteriorating public discourse and harassment.
At the University of Michigan’s Center for Local, State and Urban Policy, we have been surveying local officials in Michigan’s 1,856 cities, villages, counties and townships since 2009. About 70% of local governments in the state complete our survey each year, which means that our results reflect the opinions of everyone from township clerks in the Upper Peninsula to mayors of larger cities in the Metro Detroit area.
This Michigan Public Policy Survey has covered a wide variety of local issues over the years. One topic we track closely is how democracy is functioning in local communities.
While many public opinion surveys ask how Americans feel about democracy, very few examine the viewpoints of local officials whose job it is to carry out the daily work of democratic governance. For example, instead of asking whether people trust their government, we flip the question around and ask local officials whether they trust their residents to be responsible participants in policymaking.
To get a high-level understanding of local democratic health, we ask Michigan local officials to rate the overall functioning of democracy in their communities on a scale of 1 to 10, from total breakdown to perfectly functioning.
Statewide, 82% reported a score of 7 or higher when we surveyed them in the spring of 2025. This percentage has remained remarkably steady since we first began tracking it in 2020.
At the other end of the scale, only 2% of communities this year rated democracy poorly – 4 or below – falling from a high of 7% in 2024.
While these high ratings are good news for local democracy in general, when we break down the results by whether communities consider themselves more urban or rural, we see some divergence. While 82% of communities overall reported relatively good democratic health this year, this reflects 92% of urban communities and 79% of rural communities.
We also see evidence of a growing urban/rural divide in resident engagement, an essential ingredient of democratic health. When we asked local officials how engaged their residents were with their local governments, 64% of urban communities said their residents were somewhat or very engaged, but only 41% of rural communities felt the same. In fact, 13% of rural communities said their residents are not engaged at all, compared with only 5% of urban communities.
Similarly, local officials in urban communities have higher levels of trust in their residents to be responsible participants in local policymaking – for example, by contributing ideas, volunteering or speaking with elected officials. In Michigan’s urban communities, 48% of local officials said they trust their residents nearly always or most of the time. However, only 38% of rural local officials had the same level of trust in their residents.
While rural communities currently appear to be struggling more than urban communities to engage with their residents, looking over time, democratic participation is getting worse everywhere. For example, 18% of Michigan communities statewide reported this year that civic discourse among residents was somewhat or very divisive, up from 11% in 2012.
Between 2012 and today, despite their efforts to expand engagement opportunities, particularly online, local officials’ satisfaction with their residents’ level of engagement has plummeted from 58% in 2012 to 38% in 2025. Among the most common frustrations are that their efforts attract the same people over and over and that a small vocal minority of residents is negatively affecting overall engagement.
Even more troubling, about half of local officials who responded to the 2022 version of our survey have experienced some kind of personal harassment, with 39% reporting in-person harassment such as hostile or aggressive comments, 31% reporting online harassment and 3% reporting violent actions like assault or destruction of property.
While only 17% of Americans currently trust the federal government to “do what is right” “just about always” or “most of the time,” according to a recent Pew survey, 65% of Americans still trust their local government. And as our survey results suggest, most local officials feel pretty confident that they’re being good stewards of local democracy, despite declining help and input from their residents.
To any Americans worried about the state of their democracy, may we suggest heading to the next meeting of the local planning commission? We hear there are sometimes even snacks.
Read more of our stories about Michigan.
Stephanie Leiser 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
The U.S. Department of Justice has made a partial release of documents from what’s become known collectively as the “Jeffrey Epstein files,” with more to follow at an unspecified time. On a special part of its website that the department titled “Epstein Library,” it lists documents such as court records and records released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests to the government.
Their release was ordered by Congress in bipartisan legislation passed in November 2025. The deadline imposed by Congress was Dec. 19, 2025, and the Department of Justice met it with the partial release of documents in its possession with eight hours to spare.
Those files will be read, dissected and discussed by politicians and the public and reported on by the news media. It will be the latest eruption in a story that has slipped in and out of the headlines for years, but in a very particular way. Most news articles ask a specific question – which powerful men might be on “the list”? Journalists and the public are watching to see what those documents will reveal beyond names we already know, and whether a long-rumored client list will finally materialize.
Headlines in the past have focused on unidentified elites and who may be exposed or embarrassed, rather than on the people whose suffering made the case newsworthy in the first place: the girls and young women Epstein abused and trafficked.
Alongside that, there has been a stream of survivor-centered reporting. Some outlets, including CNN, have regularly featured Epstein survivors and their attorneys reacting to new developments. Those segments are a reminder that another story is available, one that treats the women at the center of the case as sources of understanding, not just as evidence of someone else’s fall from grace.
These coexisting storylines reveal a deeper problem. After the #MeToo movement peaked, the public conversation about sexual violence and the news has clearly shifted. More survivors now speak publicly under their own names, and some outlets have adapted.
Yet long-standing conventions about what counts as news – conflict, scandal, elite people and dramatic turns in a case – still shape which aspects of sexual violence make it into headlines and which stay on the margins.
That tension raises a question: In a case where the law largely permits naming victims of sexual violence, and where some survivors are explicitly asking to be seen, why do journalistic practices so often withhold names or treat victims as secondary to the story?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government generally may not punish news organizations for publishing truthful information drawn from public records, even when that information is a rape victim’s name.
When states tried in the 1970s and 1980s to penalize outlets that identified victims using names that had already appeared in court documents or police reports, the court said those punishments violated the First Amendment.
Newsrooms responded by tightening restraint, not loosening it. Under pressure from feminist activists, victim advocates and their own staff, many organizations adopted policies against identifying victims of sexual assault, especially without consent.
Journalism ethics codes now urge reporters to “minimize harm,” be cautious about naming victims of sex crimes, and consider the risk of retraumatization and stigma.
In other words, U.S. law permits what newsroom ethics codes discourage.
For much of the 20th century, rape victims were routinely named in U.S. news coverage – a reflection of unequal gender norms. Victims’ reputations were treated as public property, while men accused of sexual violence were portrayed sympathetically and in detail.
By the 1970s and 1980s, feminist movements drew attention to underreporting and intense stigma. Activists built rape crisis centers and hotlines, documented how rarely sexual assault cases led to prosecution, and argued that if a woman feared seeing her name in the paper, she might never report at all.
Lawmakers passed “rape shield laws” that limited the use of a victim’s sexual history in court. Some states went further by barring publication of victims’ names.
In response to these laws, as well as feminist pressure, most newsrooms by the 1980s moved toward a default rule of not naming victims.
More recently, the #MeToo movement added a turn. Survivors in workplaces, politics and entertainment chose to speak publicly, often under their own names, about serial abuse and institutional cover-ups. Their accounts forced newsrooms to revisit assumptions about whose voices should lead a story.
Yet #MeToo also unfolded within existing journalistic conventions. Investigations tended to focus on high-profile men, spectacular falls from power and moments of reckoning, leaving less space for the quieter, ongoing realities of recovery, legal limbo and community response.
There are good reasons for policies against naming victims.
Survivors may face harassment, employment discrimination or danger from abusers if they are identified. For minors, there are additional concerns about long-term digital evidence. In communities where sexual violence carries intense social stigma, anonymity can be a lifeline.
But research on media framing suggests that naming patterns matter. When coverage focuses on the alleged perpetrator as a complex individual – someone with a name, a career and a backstory – while referring to “a victim” or “accusers” in the singular, audiences are more likely to empathize with the suspect and scrutinize the victim’s behavior.
In high-profile cases like Epstein’s, that dynamic intensifies. The powerful men connected to him are named, dissected and speculated about. The survivors, unless they work hard to step forward, remain a blurred mass in the background. Anonymity meant to protect actually flattens their experience. Different stories of grooming, coercion and survival get reduced to a single faceless category.
That flattening is part of what makes the current moment in the Epstein story so revealing. The suspense is less about whether more victims will be heard and more about what being named will do to influential men. It becomes a story about whose names count as news.
Carefully anonymizing survivors while breathlessly chasing a client list of powerful men unintentionally sends a message about who matters most.
The Epstein scandal, in that framing, is not primarily about what was done to girls and young women over many years, but about who among the elite might be embarrassed, implicated or exposed.
A more survivor-centered journalistic approach would start from a different set of questions, including wondering which survivors have chosen to speak on the record and why, and how news outlets can protect anonymity, when it is asked for, but still convey a victim’s individuality.
Those questions are not only about ethics. They are about news judgment. They ask editors and reporters to consider whether the most important part of a story like Epstein’s is the next famous name to drop or the ongoing lives of the people whose abuse made that name newsworthy at all.
This is an update to a story originally published on Dec. 15, 2025, to reflect the release of documents by the U.S. Department of Justice on Dec. 19.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Jana Duggar is very pregnant and putting her baby bump on display.
The eldest Duggar daughter is pregnant with her first child.
Now, the countdown to the due date is truly underway.
Jana is sharing selfies — and, some speculate, may have just hinted at a more exact due date.
On Wednesday, December 17, Jana Duggar took to her Instagram to share multiple new looks at her pregnant belly.
She snapped and posted two mirror selfies wearing the same winter ensemble.
One photo shows Jana at an angle.
The other shows her pregnant profile in the mirror.
In both pics, Jana is emphasizing her prominent baby bump with her free hand while the other holds her phone.
In addition to the photos, Jana included a caption in her post.
“The anticipation is building in our home!” she announced excitedly.
Jana added: “Can’t wait to meet this little guy!”
She concluded that text with a blue heart emoji.
Obviously, the “little guy” in question is her future child. She and husband Stephen Wissmann are expecting a son.
Jana Duggar has just shy of 900,000 Instagram followers.
After the long-overdue fall of the Duggar family’s reality TV empire, some have used social media as a lifeline to keep longtime watchers updated on their lives.
For years, Jana’s updates were about her projects, from home improvement to gardening.
Now, followers are paying rapt attention as she keeps them up to speed on her pregnancy journey.
This post is far from the first to showcase her baby bump for fans. And it’s unlikely to be the last.
Back in September, Jana revealed that she was halfway through her pregnancy.
She also confirmed the due date — however broadly — in an August Instagram post announcing that she was expecting.
“We are so excited, January 2026 is going to come with a little bundle of joy joining our family!” she gushed at the time.
There are 31 days in January.
Has Jana dropped a hint about a more exact due date?
Some fans on social media are wondering if Jana Duggar sharing her anticipatory mirror selfies on December 17 was no mere coincidence.
(Given her religious beliefs and cultural background, we can safely say that she didn’t pick that date because it’s the start of Saturnalia)
Due dates are educated guesses — because no pregnancy is exactly the same.
But … could Jana’s due date be January 17? If so, she shared that post just one month before she expects to give birth.
It’s an intriguing theory, but probably a bit of a stretch. As we said, Jana has shared baby bump pics before — and likely will again.
Jana Duggar Displays HUGE Baby Bump as Due Date Looms was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
The night before Rob and Michele Reiner were found stabbed to death in their home, the couple attended a holiday party hosted by Conan O’Brien.
The Reiners were joined by their troubled son, 32-year-old Nick Reiner, who has now been charged with their murder.
Insiders previously revealed that Nick and Rob had a “loud argument” at the party, and now it seems that O’Brien dissuaded his other guests from calling the police.
“They got in an argument, the father and son. It got so bad and loud someone wanted to call the police to report it,” a source familiar with the event told the Daily Mail on Friday.
“But Conan stepped in and said, ‘It’s my house, my party, I’m not calling the police.’ He talked them out of calling the police.”
Another witness echoed that observation, explaining that the argument between Rob and Nick was so severe that multiple guests believed police intervention was necessary.
“When the s–t was hitting the fan, somebody said we need to call the police,” says the second source, adding:
“The conversation was about getting this kid put into a mental-health hold.”
The second source says they empathize with both the concern from other guests and with O’Brien’s reluctance to call 911.
“It makes sense; who wants the cops showing up creating a scene?” the insider said, adding:
“But the argument between Rob and Nick was pretty intense.”
The news comes on the heels of reports that Nick was behaving erratically and pestering guests at the party.
“Nick was freaking everyone out, acting crazy, kept asking people if they were famous,” recalled one guest.
Different sources previously told Rob Shuter’s ShuterScoop that Conan was “wracked with guilt” after learning of Rob and Michele’s murders.
“He keeps thinking, ‘What if I had stepped in? What if I’d pulled Rob aside or shut it down?” one insider claimed. “He feels like maybe he could have changed the course of what happened.”
“Conan is replaying every detail in his mind,” a second source said. “He’s wracked with guilt and keeps wondering if anything he did—or didn’t do—could have made a difference.”
While no one could’ve imagined that Rob and Michele would be brutally murdered, the couple’s struggles with their youngest son were reportedly common knowledge within their friend group.
“I’m petrified of [Nick]. I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I’m afraid of my son. I think my own son can hurt me,” an anonymous celebrity friend recently recalled Rob saying, according to Page Six.
We will have further updates on this developing story as new information becomes available.
Conan O’Brien Stopped Guests From Calling 911 During Rob Reiner-Nick Reiner Fight: … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Bowen Yang is about to end his run on Saturday Night Live.
According to People Magazine insiders, the comedian will depart this sketch comedy show after making one final appearance on the December 20 edition of the series.
This episode will be hosted by Yang’s good friend and Wicked co-star Ariana Grande.
Neither Yang himself nor anyone associated with the funny star has confirmed this exit. But People is reporting on it as though it’s a done deal.
A five-time Emmy nominee, Yang became SNL’s first Chinese American cast member when he joined in 2019… and also one of its first openly gay stars.
As his career took off, some believed Yang would leave the program before it even started Season 51 back in September.
“I’ve always gone by the instinct of, do I have more to do? And I feel like I do,” he told People in the fall.
“Even [creator] Lorne [Michaels] and I talked about it, and Lorne was like, ‘You have more to do,’ and that means a lot, because I even confessed to him. I was like, ‘I feel the audience is maybe getting sick of me.’ And he was like, ‘That’s not true. There’s more for you to do. I need you.’”
Previously, Yang described the Saturday Night Live as “this growing, living thing where new people come in and you do have to sort of make way for them and to grow and to keep elevating themselves.”
He’s always made it clear that he wasn’t gonna stick around forever.
Yang remains grateful to Michaels for the opportunity and, we assume, will focus going forward on his big screen career.
“I owe a lot of my life to that show,” Yang has said. “And I love working there, the people are the best. I really love each of them so much.”
Bowen Yang is Leaving Saturday Night Live After 7 Seasons was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
During a recent interview with Katie Couric, journalist Tina Brown made a shocking allegation about Prince Harry.
Brown described a conversation between herself and the late Jane Goodall in which Goodall claimed that she once witnessed Harry refer to his son as “my little African child.”
“Jane Goodall, before she died, I had a lunch with her, and she said that she went to see… she was one of the only people outside the family that went to see Archie when he was born,” Brown said.
“And Harry said, ‘This is my little African child.’”
Goodall explained that Harry did not intend to be racially insensitive.
Rather, the remark seemed to be his way of saying that he intended to raise Archie in a way that was less stuffy and formal than his own upbringing.
“It’s going to be my child who, you know — wild child, essentially. They were going to have this time together, living a life off the grid as it were,” she continued.
“She said she was absolutely stunned when he chose the life that he did.”
Brown mentioned the incident as evidence of how far Harry has strayed from the life he intended to lead.
But naturally, most media outlets latched on to a different angle, and Harry is now being accused of using wildly tone deaf and insensitive language to refer to his own child.
Reps for Harry were quick to issue a statement denying that he ever made such a comment.
“The Duke of Sussex has never said anything remotely resembling what is being claimed,” the statement read (via People).
“Tina Brown knows exactly what she’s doing by inventing these words and attributing them to a highly respected woman who is deceased and unable to correct the record.“
Brown responded by admitting that she may have misquoted Harry.
“On Katie Couric’s podcast yesterday, I recounted what Jane Goodall said to me in June of this year about Prince Harry,” she said in a statement issued to People.
“She remembered affectionately Harry saying when Archie was born, ‘I want you to come and meet my African Child,’” Brown continued, adding:
“She actually said, ‘Africa child,’ but I was speaking too quickly. Aside from that inadvertent mistake, everything else in Ms. Goodall’s conversation with me, I rendered accurately.”
We’re sure Harry appreciates the clarification. But he probably would have preferred for Brown to just keep that whole anecdote to herself.
Prince Harry Addresses Claims He Referred to Archie as His ‘Little African … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
It’s official:
Joaquim Valente may be the luckiest man on the face of the Earth.
We learned (via Page Six) late this week that Valente exchanged vows in Sunrise, Florida on December 3 with Gisele Bündchen … arguably the best looking woman in the world.
According to TMZ, the couple was married at their home in a small ceremony.
Bündchen and Valente began dating in June 2023 following the former’s divorce from football legend Tom Brady.
The newlyweds previously welcomed a baby boy together in early 2025, with a source telling People Magazine at the time:
“Gisele and Joaquim are happy for this new chapter in their life and they’re looking forward to creating a peaceful and loving environment for the whole family.”
In March 2024, Bündchen opened up about her romance with Valente … who she was pals with before their connection turned romantic and who at least some believe she cheated on Brady with, although Gisele has said this is a “lie.”
“This is the first time I am seeing someone that was a friend of mine first,” the model said in an interview with the New York Times. “It’s very different. It is very honest, and it’s very transparent.”
Okay. But who is Joaquim Valente?!?
He is a jiu-jitsu trainer with a criminology degree who has worked with Bündchen and her family for years.
He has an estimated net worth between $1 million and $5 million.
His Instagram account is private.
Gisele shared a rare picture of Valente for his birthday in November 2025. You can see it below and it included this caption: “Happy birthday @joaquimvalente! I love you!”
“Joaquim is a great guy,” a People Magazine insider said months ago. “He is down to earth, kind and inspiring. Gisele was hesitant about dating after the divorce. It’s been very natural for her to date Joaquim.”
This person added:
“They come from similar backgrounds. They both left Brazil very young. They have both created amazing lives for themselves in the U.S. They both love Miami, but also enjoy traveling. They both enjoy healthy living. Gisele’s in a great space. She is happy and very much enjoying life. Joaquim is perfect for her.”
As noted above, Bündchen gave birth to her and Valente’s son in February. The couple have yet to reveal their little one’s name.
She also has a son Benjamin Rein, 15, and daughter Vivian Lake, 12, with Brady.
“Now that my little one is sleeping through the night, I’m back in control of my routine,” Gisele said in a May interview for Vogue France.
“As any new mom knows, it’s incredible how much sleep — or lack of it — can change everything! But once again, I feel truly grateful: being able to be home with my kids and enjoy every moment with them is priceless.”
Joaquim Valente MARRIES Gisele Bundchen! Who is This Guy?!? was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
The Trump administration, initially wary over the Justice Department’s release of Jeffrey Epstein documents, pounced on go-to villain Bill Clinton’s appearance in Friday’s trove of pictures, emails and interviews.
“I wonder why the Biden DOJ refused to release the files…,” DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin posted from his personal X account, alongside one partially-redacted photo of Clinton in a pool with an unidentified woman. Another swimming pool photo Gilmartin posted shows Clinton with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime co-conspirator who was convicted of sex trafficking charges in 2021.
Trump and the DOJ also resisted releasing the files until Congress passed a bill to do so. Trump signed the bill last month.
Clinton has long been linked with Epstein, contributing to his status as MAGA’s favored boogeyman. Some high-profile members of the movement cited him in pushing for the release of the files, and continued that message after the DOJ made public a trove of documents from the government’s investigation into Epstein.
“Slick Willy! @BillClinton just chillin, without a care in the world. Little did he know…” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung posted to X.
“Here is Bill Clinton in a hot tub next to someone whose identity has been redacted. Per the Epstein Files Transparency Act, DOJ was specifically instructed only to redact the faces of victims and/or minors. Time for the media to start asking real questions,” White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson posted to her personal X account.
The act also allowed the DOJ to redact material related to active investigations.
It’s unclear when the previously unreleased photo was taken and where the pool is located.
Clinton appears in photos posing with Epstein in coordinating shirts, interacting with a dancer, sitting with a redacted woman on his lap on what looks like an airplane and with someone who appears to be the late pop icon Michael Jackson. The music legend faced his own child sex abuse allegations as early as 1993, though he was never convicted of any crimes.
The former president is also seen at a dinner sitting next to rock star Mick Jagger, alongside Maxwell and Epstein.
Epstein faced state and federal charges over two decades related to the sexual abuse and trafficking of dozens of underage girls as young as 14. He pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges in 2008, one of which was for soliciting prostitution from someone under 18. He was awaiting trial on federal child trafficking charges when he died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. His connections to the wealthy and powerful, and efforts to keep information related to him from becoming public, has become part of the national political narrative – intensifying bipartisan sniping and deepening fractures in Trump’s base.
The files were heavily redacted. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said earlier Friday that the first dissemination would be partial, with as many as hundreds of thousands of more documents to follow in the coming weeks.
A spokesperson for Clinton said the Friday afternoon timing of the document release is “about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever.”
“So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton,” Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff for Clinton, posted in a statement on X. “There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that.”
Clinton and Epstein have been linked since the early 1990s, having run in the same social circles. They have been photographed together several times. Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane in the early 2000s, taking trips to Europe, Asia and Africa. Ureña said those trips included stops for work connected to the Clinton Foundation.
The former president has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein, and said he was not aware of Epstein’s crimes, something a Clinton spokesperson reiterated in a social media post six years ago.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee this month released additional photos from Epstein’s estate that feature Clinton.
Trump has long suggested that Clinton repeatedly visited Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the location of alleged sex trafficking and abuse where the financier hosted high-profile friends. But White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said in a Vanity Fair interview published this week that Trump was “wrong” to tie Clinton to Epstein’s criminal activity.
Trump and Epstein were longtime friends before Trump said they had a falling out several years ago. The president has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that he took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
Politics
Though diets can promote healthier eating, fad diets always seem to take the forefront in the conversation. This was especially true in the ’70s.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
