Jack and Aree welcomed their baby on March 5, 2026. That was last Thursday.
Their newborn weighed 7 pounds and 12 ounces at birth, and measured 19 inches in length.
The biggest surprise of all, however, came on the first line of the card.
Jack and Aree named their precious child Ozzy Matilda Osbourne.
Clearly, the baby’s first name is a tribute to Jack’s late father.
‘I’m A Celebrity …’ features Jack Osbourne, seen here talking about the “vibey” experience. (Image Credit: ITVX)
When did they conceive?
Jack first revealed that he and Aree were expecting several months ago, in December of 2025.
He shared that they’d had the chance to tell Ozzy before he died last July at the age of 76.
(With a March 5 delivery, Jack and Aree likely conceived in the middle of June of last year — meaning that they knew very early, and told Ozzy much sooner than most couples would have.)
“I think it’s been partly a healthy distraction, partly healing — probably in that kind of ‘full cycle’ category, in a weird way,” Jack told The Sun last year.
“It’s very much taken energy out of the grieving side of things and parked in a bit more hopefulness,” he expressed.
There, he admitted that the rocker’s death was “a surprise, for sure,” despite his known health issues.
“Obviously everyone knew he was sick,” Jack acknowledged.
“But we weren’t expecting it to be as quick as it was,” he confessed. “I think he was done.”
Jack also disclosed that his father’s final hours were not “dramatic.”
Knowing that his fans wanted to hear from him, Jack Osbourne discussed his father’s passing mere weeks after the fact. (Image Credit: YouTube)
Name tributes can be controversial
In some cultures, naming a family member after a deceased relative is bad luck — as if the child will share the adult’s fate.
For others, it’s almost obligatory to honor a child with a relative’s name.
We suspect that this wee babe might be more likely to go by Matilda when she gets older. Or by another name altogether.
But the Ozzy name tribute is very sweet.
For now, it might be a little weird for the rest of the Osbourne family to speak of “Ozzy” in two very different contexts. But we’re sure that they’ll adapt.
Once these safety net changes expired at the end of 2021, childhood poverty rebounded, surging from 5% in 2021 to 13% in 2024.
While federal anti-poverty initiatives like the child tax credit expansion have stalled, states like Colorado are increasingly leveraging their tax codes to combat poverty. The Colorado Family Affordability Tax Credit took effect in tax year 2024. It is one of the most substantial and accessible state-level programs designed to support families, potentially offering thousands of dollars to low-income Colorado parents.
As economicpolicyresearchers, we are conducting a three-year evaluation of the Colorado Family Affordability Tax Credit. We estimate that the credit reduces child poverty in Colorado by about 20%, and that reduction increases to 37% when combined with other state tax credits for low-income families, moving roughly 52,000 children above the poverty line.
Colorado’s approach is projected to have one of the strongest anti-poverty effects among state refundable child tax credits. If Colorado’s design were implemented in every U.S. state, child poverty nationwide could be reduced by more than one-third.
State anti-poverty programs are more vital now as planned cuts to federal safety net programs may substantially reduce the benefits available for low-income families. The 2025 federal tax breaks and spending cuts package expanded work requirements for the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and Medicaid – programs that millions of families rely on to meet their food and healthcare needs.
“PBS NewsHour” reports on the changes to SNAP as a result of the passage of the 2025 federal tax breaks and spending cuts bill.
However, research finds that stricter work requirements reduce program participation more than they increase work. Changing enrollment systems requires retraining staff and providing outreach and education to enrollees, which is costly to implement.
As a result, many Americans may lose benefits not because of an unwillingness to work, but because of complex rules and red tape, which are difficult to manage while juggling unsteady jobs, caregiving obligations or health issues.
Federal changes to the safety net will hit Colorado especially hard. Early estimates from simulation models applying the new requirements show that roughly 298,000 Colorado families could lose their SNAP benefits, and 154,000 could lose Medicaid coverage. These cuts will disproportionately affect families with children, low-wage workers and families already struggling to make ends meet.
Amid soaring costs of living in the state, tighter eligibility doesn’t eliminate need. Instead, it forces families into difficult trade-offs. Those could include skipping meals, delaying medical care or falling behind on rent.
Using the tax system to support families
Colorado’s Family Affordability Tax Credit was implemented in 2024. The credit provides US$3,200 per child under age 6 and $2,400 per child ages 6 to 16, making it one of the most substantial state child tax credits.
Married couples filing jointly with eligible children who earn up to about $95,000 per year qualify for a portion of the credit. It is fully refundable, meaning families can receive the credit as a tax refund even if they do not owe anything in state taxes. Delivered through the tax system, access is simple and largely automatic for most households.
Colorado families with children could qualify for up to $7,000 in tax credits.
Parents who received the credit consistently told us in interviews that it made it easier for them to afford paying for their basic needs, such as food, housing, utilities and transportation. The reduced financial strain also improved their emotional well-being and family dynamics. As one caregiver noted, lower stress meant they weren’t in “hustle mode” just to keep the lights on.
The credit is “more than a dollar amount,” another said. It provides “peace of mind.”
Parents also highlighted the positive effects that receiving this tax credit had on children. The money allowed some to take their kids to activities and on outings, and allowed many parents to feel more present with their children.
“If I’m relaxed and my own cup is full, I can fill theirs,” said one parent. “It’s a ripple effect.”
More than 60% of the families we surveyed said they preferred the tax credit to other kinds of government benefits, citing its flexibility and ease of use. Unlike programs that require frequent reporting or compliance checks, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Colorado’s Family Affordability Tax Credit was often described as straightforward.
“I never feel it’s that difficult to get,” said one participant we interviewed.
Why tax credits work — and where this approach can fall short
Colorado’s tax-based approach to fighting poverty, which includes the Family Affordability Tax Credit, the Colorado Earned Income Tax Credit and the Colorado Child Tax Credit, offers flexible support via a familiar system. However, this approach has limitations.
Another issue is that lump-sum payments can be difficult to budget for people who rely on government benefits to make ends meet. Our research suggests that one-third of Colorado respondents preferred monthly payments. We’ve also found that two-thirds of federal child tax credit recipients in 2021 preferred monthly payments for budgeting reasons.
Why state investment in children matters
Although the full impacts of the Family Affordability Tax Credit on Colorado’s children are not yet known, a robust body of research points to the powerful role state policies can play in shaping young children’s development. Increased family income benefits children by enabling greater family resources, such as educational spending, and reducing parental stress.
Importantly, increasing spending that supports families with children can yield long-term benefits for society by improving children’s health, education, employment and economic stability later in life. Research shows a 10-to-1 return on investment from providing refundable tax credits to these families.
As federal support wanes, state policies, like Colorado’s, could be crucial for providing the stability children need to grow, learn and thrive. Unless Colorado makes the Family Affordability Tax Credit a permanent and reliable fixture of the state budget – as a recent proposal aims to do – the progress the state has made in reducing child poverty may only be temporary.
Stephen Roll receives funding from Gary Community Ventures.
Jenn Finders has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
Leah Hamilton receives funding from Gary Community Ventures.
Despite how using Ozempic and other GLP-1s has become the trend among many celebs trying to lose weight, some stars have been vocal critics of the practice.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
A group of refugees and asylum-seekers tour a commercial fishing marina as part of a summer immersion program in August 2018 in Eastport, Maine. John Moore/Getty Images
The Department of Homeland Security issued a policy memo in February 2026 that could lead to the detention of refugees who are legally in the country.
The new policy states that “DHS may arrest and detain a refugee who has lived in the United States for at least one year and has not yet acquired” lawful permanent resident status. Approximately 100,000 refugees could be at risk for such arrest and detention.
The policy rescinds a 2010 DHS policy that limited the agency’s ability to arrest refugees. The 2010 policy was cited in a 2026 court order that temporarily prohibited agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting refugees in Minnesota in an effort to root out cases of fraud in the refugee admissions process.
As an immigration scholar, I believe the new DHS memo constitutes a massive departure from previous policy – one that could result in the detention of thousands of people who have lawful immigration status.
To better understand the new DHS policy and the change it represents, it’s helpful to clarify what it means to be a refugee.
Refugees flee persecution
Refugees flee their countries to escape persecution due to their race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Under U.S. immigration law, a refugee is someone who arrived in the U.S. through an official U.S. resettlement process.
After registering as a refugee abroad, the process for being resettled in the U.S. can take years – sometimes decades – and requires rigorous background checks.
At issue with the new DHS policy is the interpretation of Section 209 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the statute that governs refugee adjustments and moves them from refugee status to lawful permanent resident.
Section 209 states that refugees who have been physically present in the U.S. for one year and haven’t yet received lawful permanent resident status “shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of DHS for inspection and admission” as a lawful permanent resident.
Historically, this has meant that refugees are required to undergo a secondary screening, through an interview or paper application, before receiving their green cards.
Vietnamese evacuees fill a landing craft, assisted by U.S. Marines, on May 4, 1975. More than 125,000 refugees from Vietnam were resettled in the U.S. between 1975 and 1980. AP Photo/Neal Ulevich
But DHS is now interpreting the language in Section 209 to impose a duty on refugees to voluntarily return to DHS custody – which it defines as detention – after one year in the country. This is despite the fact that refugees are not even eligible for legal permanent resident status until they have been in the country for a full year, putting refugees in an impossible situation.
Essentially, every refugee could face imprisonment unless immigration officials review and approve their green card applications at exactly the one-year mark.
History of refugee policy
The language in Section 209 arose after the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law that created our current refugee resettlement framework. Prior to this, there was no fixed legal mechanism for resettling refugees in the U.S.
Instead, the government responded to humanitarian crises largely on an ad hoc basis. It temporarily allowed people into the U.S. from Vietnam and Cuba.
Once here, those individuals had no long-term legal status unless Congress managed to pass after-the-fact legislation authorizing them to apply for green cards, as it did for Cubans with the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
The Refugee Act of 1980 was meant to solve this problem. It established a legal mechanism for refugee resettlement. It created a new refugee immigration status and ensured that refugees are eligible for permanent residency.
The earliest regulations implementing Section 209 show the “returned to custody” language was satisfied by attending an interview at a local immigration office. It was part of the green card process that was eventually replaced with a paper application.
The regulations implementing that change state that the “‘custody’ requirement for refugees applying for adjustment of status” can be met by filing an application.
What the DHS memo means for refugees
So, what normally happens if a refugee fails to submit their application?
Previous ICE guidance recognized that even if a refugee fails to file a green card application at all, they still maintain their lawful refugee immigration status. The failure to submit an application did not create any basis to deport a refugee. Therefore, absent other factors, immigration detention was inappropriate.
A Syrian refugee and his family shop for groceries in El Cajon, Calif., on Aug. 31, 2016. AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi
What will refugees do now?
Immigration attorneys are advising their refugee clients to file for lawful permanent status immediately, if they have not yet done so, to reduce the risk of detention. But that may not be enough.
The DHS memo states that a refugee “may be considered to have voluntarily returned to custody” if they filed their application and complied with any interviews. But the wording of the memo leaves open the door to detain anyone who has not yet had their application approved.
This leads to another issue, which is DHS administrative delays. The government currently takes approximately 12 months to approve refugee green card applications for requests it’s willing to process.
In January 2026, another DHS policy put an indefinite hold on all applications for individuals from a list of 39 countries. Consequently, applications for refugees from countries including Haiti, Afghanistan and Republic of the Congo are not being reviewed at all.
This means that refugees who have done everything right could be imprisoned indefinitely under this policy, because the U.S. government is refusing to judge their applications.
At least one federal lawsuit has already been filed to challenge this new policy.
What happens now depends on how far DHS is willing to go and whether the courts allow it to do so.
Ashley Sanchez is the director of the Notre Dame Immigration Clinic, where she and her students represent refugees seeking permanent residency. She was previously the Supervising Attorney at Cleveland Catholic Charities, Migration and Refugee Services.
As Nutella lovers rush into the jar for their favorite hazelnut-packed treat, it’s easy to overlook that the brand has an odd-one-out color in its logo.
Mashed – Fast Food, Celebrity Chefs, Grocery, Reviews
True to his cowboy roots, John Wayne was an avid at-home griller who preferred his steaks prepared with a level of precision that requires a bit of practice.
Elvis Presley was raised on Southern food, and he maintained a strong affinity for it throughout his life. One of his favorites came from a family recipe.
Mashed – Fast Food, Celebrity Chefs, Grocery, Reviews
Top allies of President Donald Trump are furious at the White House’s new rhetorical emphasis on deporting violent criminals over all unauthorized immigrants — and they’re launching a lobbying effort to reverse that reversal.
A group of longtime Trump allies, immigration restrictionist groups and hawkish policy experts have formed the Mass Deportation Coalition to lobby the Trump administration to refocus its efforts on deporting all eligible migrants. The group has commissioned new polling from one of Trump’s top pollsters to back its thesis that doing so will ensure GOP wins this November, and plans to share that data with White House officials, agency heads and every member of Congress.
The new poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that Trump has used in all of his presidential elections, and shared exclusively with POLITICO. It found that 66 percent of likely 2026 voters support deporting any migrants who enter the country illegally. When asked if they support deporting all deportable migrants, not just violent criminals, a majority (58 percent) say they do.
Eighty-seven percent of Trump 2024 voters surveyed, including 79 percent of Hispanic Trump voters, want the president to exceed the previous largest deportation effort in history, led in the 1950s by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“Overwhelmingly, Trump voters expect this from the administration. They don’t just support it, they expect it,” said Chris Chmielenski, president of the Immigration Accountability Project, which advocates for conservative immigration policy. “This is a good way to re-energize the base as we move into the midterms, the same way that Trump was able to do so in the lead up to the 2024 general election.”
The new coalition includes Mark Morgan, the former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection under Trump; Erik Prince, a Trump ally and former Blackwater CEO; as well as a number of conservative think-tanks and lobbying groups close to the Trump administration including the Heritage Foundation, Federation for American Immigration Reform, American Moment, and the Claremont Institute.
Morgan, who also served as chief of the U.S. Border Patrol under both former President Barack Obama and Trump, said a deportation strategy that involves targeting only violent criminals, gang members or terrorists for deportation is “a Clinton-Obama-Biden policy. And it’s historically been a disastrous failure.”
The campaign comes as other Republican strategists and lawmakers warn Trump’s mass deportation agenda is becoming increasingly unpopular following ICE operations in Minnesota that killed two U.S. citizens, and could hurt the party’s chances of retaining control of Congress.
Since then, the administration has pivoted its message on immigration enforcement while overhauling its leadership at DHS. Border czar Tom Homan replaced CBP chief Greg Bovino in Minneapolis and drew down the immigration enforcement presence there; the president ousted DHS Secretary Kristi Noem last week and tapped Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to replace her; and even Trump, in his State of the Union address, focused mostly on border security and deporting violent criminals.
On Tuesday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair instructed House Republicans to curb their hardline rhetoric and instead focus on removing violent criminals. Blair doubled down in a post on X, writing thatRepublicans are focused on “deporting the violent/criminal illegals that Joe Biden & the Democrats in Congress let in.”
Those comments angered members of the coalition, who say taking a “worst of the worst” approach to deportations is not a winning policy.
Still, the coalition’s poll results differ drastically from other recent polling on immigration: A January POLITICO poll found that nearly half of U.S. adults say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, including 1 in 5 of his 2024 voters. AFebruary NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that 65 percent of U.S. adults think Immigration and Customs Enforcements has gone too far in enforcing immigration laws.
In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson denied that the White House has shifted its deportation approach.
“Nobody is changing the Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda,” Jackson said. “President Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities. As the Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly said, approximately 70 percent of deportations to date have been illegal aliens with criminal records. Thanks to President Trump’s strong immigration enforcement policies, approximately 3 million illegals have left the United States, either through forced deportation or self-deportation, with zero illegals coming through the most secure border in U.S. History for nine straight months.”
According to an internal DHS document obtained by CBS News, less than 14 percent of those arrested by ICE in Trump’s first year in office had violent criminal records.
Hispanic GOP lawmakers have recently lobbied DHS and the White House, expressing concern that the aggressive deportation approach could alienate the Hispanic voters that helped secure Trump’s victory in 2024. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) acknowledged those concerns Tuesday, telling reporters that there has been a “hiccup” with some Hispanic and other voters who view DHS’ approach as “overzealous.”
“Everybody can describe it differently, but here’s the good news,” Johnson added. “We’re in a course-correction mode right now.”
But the Mass Deportation Coalition is hoping its poll — which was commissioned by Chmielenski’s Immigration Accountability Project and conducted between Feb. 27 and March 3 — will course-correct that course correction. The online survey had a sample of 2,000 likely voters and a margin of error of 2.2 percent.
Chmielenski said he views the first year of Trump’s term as “phase one” of this deportation push, and now wants to see the administration enter “phase two”: by focusing on worksite raids, targeting any deportable individual and reaching 1 million removals in 2026. The Department of Homeland Security said it deported more than 600,000 individuals in 2025.
“Now that we’re a year into the administration, the public sentiment hasn’t changed,” Chmielenski said. “We still believe the Trump administration … has a mandate on mass deportations.”
