.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
Rod Stewart details why his friendship with Trump has ended
Rod Stewart has renounced his friendship with Donald Trump, stating that Trump became a different person after becoming president.
Stewart and Trump had a long-standing relationship, owning properties near each other in Palm Beach, Florida, and attending social events.
Stewart cited Trump's continued sale of arms to Israelis as one of the reasons he can no longer count the US president as a friend.
The singer's comments come after a public falling out between Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk.
Stewart also discussed his upcoming performance at Glastonbury Festival, where he will play the Legend's Slot on the Pyramid Stage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court upholds law on suing Palestinian authorities over attacks
WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Friday a statute passed by Congress to facilitate lawsuits against Palestinian authorities by Americans killed or injured in attacks abroad as plaintiffs pursue monetary damages for violence years ago in Israel and the West Bank. The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, violated the rights of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization to due process under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. government and a group of American victims and their families had appealed the lower court's decision that struck down a provision of the law. Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 won a $655 million judgment in a civil case alleging that the Palestinian organizations were responsible for a series of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. They also include relatives of Ari Fuld, a Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018. The ongoing violence involving Israel and the Palestinians served as a backdrop to the case. U.S. courts for years have grappled over whether they have jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian Authority and PLO for actions taken abroad. Under the language at issue in the 2019 law, the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically "consent" to jurisdiction if they conduct certain activities in the United States or make payments to people who attack Americans. New York-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority guaranteed under the Constitution. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. President Joe Biden's administration initiated the government's appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump's administration. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1.
The Sun
29 minutes ago
- The Sun
Jeopardy! contestant loses in ‘brutal' and ‘painful' way as fans ‘would've walked off set!' over unfair show rule
A JEOPARDY! contestant lost in the most 'brutal' and 'painful' way, as fans 'would've walked off set' over an unfair show rule. Jeopardy! challenges contestants to showcase their general knowledge, always phrasing their responses in the form of a question. 4 4 The three contestants wrote their answers to 'U.S National Parks. Much of this 73-square-mile National Park is located beneath the Chihuahuan Desert.' But it was a finish that left fans wanting to 'walk off the set' as they revealed their answers. As host Ken Jennings asked them for their responses, one of the contestants wrote down: 'What is Arches?' It was the wrong answer, leading his $12,000 dollars to plummet to just $2. Next up, the contestant in the middle went for the answer of: 'What is Carlsbad?' Again, it was a wrong answer and so her $13,600 went down to $600. Finally, the last player revealed his answer, which was: 'What is Carlsbad Cavrans?' But he made a small mistake, in what fans have called an unfair show rule. The 'r' was before the vowel, which changed the pronunciation of the word, meaning he lost. Jeopardy! fans demand major rule change to shake up format as show has 'gone downhill' with 'carousel' of one-day champs Ken said caverns with an 'er' they would've taken, because the answer was Carlsbad Caverns. As a result, his money went from $13,600 to $0. As he lost everything, the female contestant who had $600 ended up being the Jeopardy! champion. She looked delighted, if not a little in disbelief, and fans were gobsmacked by the result. Jeopardy! Set Secrets Jeopardy! fans don't see everything behind the scenes from watching on TV. These hidden set features make the show run smoothly: Each podium has a hidden riser so that all contestants appear to be the same height. After each clue is read, signal lights go off around the game board, indicating players can buzz in and respond. Buzz in too early, and you're locked out for .25 seconds. The podiums have a small white light in the lower left corner, which tells Ken Jennings who goes next. Contrary to popular belief, the player with control doesn't have a buzzer advantage on the next clue. To the game board's left is a scoreboard so the players can see their opponents' scores. All contestants must bring three outfits to the studio, but only the host and returning champion change for the next episode. There are wardrobe rules, including restrictions on busy patterns, solid white, purple (like the background), and logos. Five episodes are taped in a single day, and sometimes more. The categories, players (aside from the returning champion), and Final Jeopardy! for a tape day are all drawn randomly to ensure fairness. Female contestants are asked not to wear makeup, which is applied backstage, and don't wear mascara because of sweat. Contestants fill out a questionnaire, and producers select five Q&A topics for the host. Host Ken isn't allowed to interact with the contestants until after the game. Players can request to sit in a chair while competing without question. One person wrote on X: 'I simply would have to walk off the stage.' Others called it the 'most painful final' they'd ever seen on the show, and someone else wrote: 'Really fun, close game, but man that final Jeopardy was an absolutely brutal way to lose. You've got to feel bad for Jacob.' Someone else commented: 'Oh my god. What a brutal ending,' and another penned: 'Oh my god. What a brutal ending.' The brutal ending comes after a Jeopardy! contestant in the UK made history after scooping one of the daytime show's biggest ever wins. In May, viewers watched as hotel receptionist Ben Jones continued the game, competing against Jonathan and Rosemary. From Caerphilly, Ben was already a nine-day reigning champion before his major win. In the final round, host Stephen asked a question based on the category Classic 80s Films. He said: "Matthew Broderick starred in the title role of the 1980s comedy film 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off', directed by this man." Ben, 23, correctly answered: "Who is John Hughes?" His impressive knowledge saw him walk away with a jackpot prize of £64,530 - the largest win for all Jeopardy! series and one of the biggest wins on daytime TV. Stephen congratulated Ben as he brought the curtain down on the last episode of the series. 4
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
