Brad Pitt's L.A. Home Reportedly 'Ransacked' by Burglars, Police Say
A Los Angeles home reportedly owned by Brad Pitt was 'ransacked' by burglars Wednesday night, according to police.
Officers with the Los Angeles Police Department responded to a home in the Los Feliz neighborhood at around 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. 'Three suspects broke into the residence via the front window, ransacked the location, then fled the location with miscellaneous property,' according to police.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Who Are 'F1: The Movie's Toughest Critics? Real-Life Racing Fans
Can Brad Pitt Rev Up Americans for Real-Life F1 Races?
Brad Pitt Says 'Se7en' "Reinvigorated" His Passion for Acting After "the Most Unhealthy Time"
LAPD would not identify who owned the home or the items that were stolen, but the Associated Press reported that the Oscar-nominated actor bought the house for $5.5 million in April 2023, according to the commercial real estate website Traded.
Authorities didn't confirm if anyone was home at the time of the burglary; however, Pitt has been traveling in recent weeks on a promotional tour for his new film, F1: The Movie. Earlier this week, on Monday, he was seen at the movie's international premiere in London. F1 hits theaters on Friday.
THR has reached out to Pitt's rep for comment.
NBC News was first to report the news of the burglary.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025
Harvey Weinstein's "Jane Doe 1" Victim Reveals Identity: "I'm Tired of Hiding"
'Awards Chatter' Podcast: 'Sopranos' Creator David Chase Finally Reveals What Happened to Tony (Exclusive)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim.
Kathleen O'Malley spent nearly three decades as a federal judge and knows what it feels like when the U.S. Marshals and FBI come calling with warnings about threats of harm. A jailhouse informant once revealed that another inmate was plotting to have her killed. O'Malley, who returned to private practice in 2022 after 16 years as a district judge in Ohio and 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, told me she always knew during her time on the bench that the U.S. Department of Justice "had my back" when threats came up. She felt a shift during President Donald Trump's first administration, a confluence of his aggressive attacks on judges who made him follow the law and the amplifying impact of his criticism through social media. The point of all that, O'Malley told me, is to intimidate judges, to prevent them from ruling against a president willing to target them just for doing their jobs. O'Malley, who once sat on a judicial committee tasked with making courthouses safe and secure, spoke to me this week because I am tracking an effort to increase funding for federal judicial security. That push comes after funding has been flat in the past two federal fiscal years, despite a growing number of threats against judges. The call for more funding has drawn predictable pushback from some Republicans in the U.S. House, including some who have vilified judges for holding Trump accountable when he was out of office and for making his administration obey the U.S. Constitution now that he has returned to the White House. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Judges don't come to this on a level playing field, O'Malley pointed out. The president is the commander in chief of our military. Congress controls spending. Judges? All they have is "the ability to persuade," she said. That should be enough. An NBC News poll released June 16 found that 81% of Americans said Trump should obey a federal court order if a judge rules his actions are illegal. That number drops to just 50% among Trump supporters. Opinion: The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts So Trump just keeps turning up the heat as judges hold him accountable to the law. And his allies in the House shrug off the danger, while echoing his attacks. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told Punchbowl News on June 13 that he sees few members "excited" to increase judicial security funding, in his reaction to a report that noted that threats against judges have nearly doubled since Trump took office. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, played the blame-the-victim game when asked about security for federal judges. 'Maybe they should stop screwing everything up,' Roy told Punchbowl News. Trump allies like Jordan and Roy offer cheap, empty rhetoric. The federal judiciary comes prepared with cold, hard math. The federal judiciary's $9.4 billion budget request for fiscal year 2026, which starts on Oct. 1, includes $892 million for security, a 19% increase of $142 million after no increases in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was elevated by Trump's appointment in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, testified to Congress in May in support of the increase for security funding, telling the House members, "The threat environment facing judges and the judiciary as a whole right now is particularly dynamic and worrisome." Judge Robert Conrad Jr., appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush 20 years ago, was named in 2024 by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He testified to Congress about the budget request with St. Eve and singled out threats of judicial impeachment being made by Trump and his allies. 'The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings," Conrad warned. "Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation." Opinion: Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency That echoes what Roberts wrote in his 2024 report on the federal judiciary, in which he said threats of impeaching judges for how they rule are "inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed." Roberts noted that the U.S. Marshals Service said "hostile threats" against judges have "more than tripled over the past decade." U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Texas Republican, took offense during the testimony by St. Eve and Conrad, but not about the threats aimed at judges. No, Cloud said, the real danger came from judges like St. Eve, Conrad and Roberts linking the politically motivated calls for impeachment to the increase in threats to judges across the country. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. As with his colleagues, Jordan and Roy, Cloud wants us to blame the targets of those threats, federal judges, and not focus on anything politicians say that might help fuel those threats. The three of them, with their rhetoric, are all the evidence we need to demonstrate that an increase in security funding for federal judges is well worth it and long overdue. They, along with Trump, show no signs of stopping their attacks. We, as Americans, must provide for the safety of judges so they can uphold our laws. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: As Trump targets judges, GOP bristles at protecting them | Opinion
CNET
38 minutes ago
- CNET
AT&T to Pay $177M in Data Breach Settlements. See if You're Eligible
AT&T customers injured by data breaches have been placed into two classes. AT&T/CNET In April 2024, a major data breach of AT&T customer records resulted in a remarkable 110,000,000 victim notices, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center's 2024 Annual Data Breach Report. The price tag for those privacy violations -- combined with another 2019 data breach -- now appears to be set at a similarly impressive $177 million. On Friday, June 20, US District Judge Ada Brown granted preliminary approval to the terms of a proposed settlement from AT&T that would resolve two lawsuits related to the data breaches. The current settlement would see AT&T pay $177 million to customers adversely affected by at least one of the two data breaches. The settlement will prioritize larger payments to customers who suffered damages that are "fairly traceable" to the data leaks. It will also provide bigger payments to those impacted by the larger of the two leaks, which began in 2019. While the company is working towards a settlement, it has continued to deny that it was "responsible for these criminal acts." For all the details about we have about the settlement right now, keep reading, and for more info about other recent settlements, find out how to claim Apple's Siri privacy settlement and see if you're eligible for 23andMe's privacy breach settlement. What happened with these AT&T data breaches? AT&T first confirmed the two data breaches last year, announcing an investigation into the first in March before confirming it in May, followed by confirmation of the second one in July. The first of the confirmed breaches began in 2019. The company revealed that around 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former account holders had their data exposed to hackers, including names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. The company first began investigating the situation last year after it reported that customer data had appeared on the dark web. The second breach began in April of 2024, when a hacker broke into AT&T cloud storage provider Snowflake and accessed 2022 call and text records for almost all of the company's US customers, around 109 million in all. The company stressed that no names were attached to the stolen data, and two individuals were arrested in connection with the breach. Both of these incidents sparked a wave of class action lawsuits alleging corporate neglect on the part of AT&T in failing to sufficiently protect its customers. How will I know if I'm eligible for the AT&T data breach settlement? As of now, we know that the settlement will pay out to any current or former AT&T customer whose data was accessed in one of these data breaches, with higher payments reserved for those who can provide documented proof that they suffered damages directly resulting from their data being stolen. If you're eligible, you should receive a notice about it, either by email or by a physical letter in the mail, sometime in the coming months. The company expects that the claims process will begin on Aug. 4, 2025. How much will the AT&T data breach payments be? You'll have to "reasonably" prove damages caused by these data breaches to be eligible for the highest and most prioritized payouts. For the 2019 breach, those claimants can receive up to $5,000. For the Snowflake breach, the max payout will be $2,500. It's not clear at this time how the company might be handling customers who've been affected by both breaches. AT&T will focus on making those payments first, and whatever's left of the $177 million settlement total will be disbursed to anyone whose data was accessed, even without proof of damages. Since these payouts depend on how many people get the higher amounts first, we can't say definitively how much they will be. When could I get paid from the AT&T data breach settlement? AT&T expects that payments will start to go out sometime in early 2026. Exact dates aren't available right now. The recent court order approving the settlement lists a notification schedule of Aug. 4 to Oct. 17, 2025. The deadline for submitting a claim is currently set at Nov. 18, 2025. The final approval of the settlement needs to be given at a Dec. 3, 2025 court hearing in order for payments to begin. Stay tuned to this piece in the coming months to get all the new details as they emerge, and for more money help, check out CNET's daily tariff price impact tracker.
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
Remember Anna Wintour's shocking first Vogue cover?
By today's standards, the front cover of American Vogue's November 1988 edition seems typical enough. Beside the text 'the real cost of looking good,' Israeli model Michaela Bercu gazes past the camera, her windswept hair brushing across the shoulders of a bejeweled $10,000 Christian Lacroix couture jacket. Yet, the cover signaled a revolution at the storied fashion bible. It also marked two important — and related — firsts: This was the first Vogue cover produced by editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and the first ever to feature a pair of jeans. London-born Wintour, who on Thursday stepped down from the role after 37 years (she will remain as Vogue's global editorial director and publisher Condé Nast's global chief content officer), had been hired to shake things up. The magazine's previous editor, Grace Mirabella, oversaw a surge in readership but was, by her own admission, increasingly out of step with the 1980s zeitgeist. Condé Nast executives were reportedly worried the title was losing its edge. Mirabella had famously repainted former editor Diana Vreeland's red office a shade of beige, which became a metaphor for her reputation as being too unadventurous. Practically every American Vogue cover from 1980 to 1988 had been taken by Richard Avedon, a fashion photographer known for his stark, minimalist style. Models were usually shot against plain studio backgrounds in heavy makeup and statement jewelry. The covers were self-consciously elegant, standing aloof from the more mainstream women's weeklies they shared newsstands with. By contrast, Wintour's debut was warm and easygoing. German photographer Peter Lindbergh held the shoot outdoors rather than in a controlled studio; Bercu's eyes were neither fully open nor looking directly at the camera. As a result, she came across as a glamorous everywoman. Wintour's unpretentious approach was seemingly epitomized by another coverline on that first issue: 'Paris couture: haut but not haughty.' 'It looked easy, casual, a moment that had been snapped on the street, which it had been, and which was the whole point,' Wintour recalled in a Vogue feature marking publication's 120th anniversary. Then there were the jeans. These were not a high-fashion label's take on Americana, they were stonewashed denim pants straight from Guess. Having launched less than a decade earlier, the denim brand's highest-profile moment at that point had come courtesy of Michael J. Fox, who wore a pair of Guess jeans as Marty McFly in 1985's 'Back to the Future.' As such, both in style and styling, Wintour's first cover was a major statement — one that set the tone for hundreds of issues to follow. She went on to forge an editorial identity her predecessors might have looked down on, from spotlighting pop culture icons to featuring a man on the cover (Richard Gere, who appeared alongside then-wife Cindy Crawford). But there was an element of luck behind her debut issue, too. Wintour has since revealed that the jeans were a last-minute decision forced upon the shoot's stylist, Carlyne Cerf de Dudzeele, by unforeseen circumstances. Bercu was initially wearing a full Christian Lacroix suit comprising the beaded jacket (which Wintour described as 'all very 'Like a Prayer'') and a skirt, but the latter didn't fit properly. '(Bercu) had been on vacation back home in Israel and had gained a little weight,' Wintour recounted in the 2012 Vogue feature, before qualifying: 'Not that that mattered. In fact, it only served to reinforce the idea to take couture's haughty grandeur and playfully throw it headlong into real life and see what happened.' Wintour has since recalled that the magazine's printers were so surprised by the front cover that they called to see whether it had been sent in error. The veteran editor also played down the intention behind the image, though she surely knew, better than most, that magazines are judged by their covers. 'Afterwards, in the way that these things can happen, people applied all sorts of interpretations: It was about mixing high and low, Michaela was pregnant, it was a religious statement. But none of these things was true,' she said. 'I had just looked at that picture and sensed the winds of change. And you can't ask for more from a cover image than that.'
