The TV host questioned the push by Johnson to award the 19-year-old the Medal of Freedom.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
My husband's ex-wife is all over him at events for their grandkids. How do I make it stop?
Welcome back to "Ask Amy & T.J." This week, they take on some grandma drama. Whether they're building an audio empire like Taylor and Travis or throwing the wedding of the year like the Bezoses, power couples inspire awe and envy. But mixing business and romance isn't always sunshine and roses. If you need advice on how to keep your relationship and your business afloat, send your question to askamyandtj@ If you want to hear more from Amy and T.J., check out their podcast. Amy & T.J., My husband has grandchildren from a previous marriage, which isn't a problem. However, their grandmother, Betty (the ex-wife), is always around. I've told him I can tolerate her being there for things like their grandkids' graduation, but not every time we get invited somewhere. For example, last weekend we were at a birthday party for someone on his side of the family (her ex-in-laws). Why is she there? And every time they meet, Betty is hugging and kissing on my husband. She can't just say hi and move along. I've asked him over and over to set boundaries but he acts like he doesn't know what that means. I told him I'm not comfortable going to our next event if she'll be there and he said 'OK, I'm going anyway.' Really? What do I do? — Gut reaction T.J. Holmes: Yes, this is partly about grandparents and grandchildren. But this is just a plain old 'Why is the ex always around' story. Amy Robach: This is about respect. It doesn't seem like your husband respects you, and certainly, the ex-wife doesn't. On further thought... TJH: We get very few no-brainer questions, but I think this is one. I'm trying to see your husband's perspective, but I just can't. I can't see why the ex-wife is of such value to him that it's worth upsetting you, the woman that he's declared he wants to spend the rest of his life with. Now, I don't know how long he and the ex-wife were married, or how close she is to the family and to the kids and grandkids. Maybe it was 25 or 30 years or more. But I still don't think that it's ever OK for any partner to treat their spouse the way he's treating you, constantly. This should be a simple conversation, ending with him saying, 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you felt that way, I respect that,' and then you can move on. But I don't know why you don't insist that this stop. AR: Yes, it's about respect. Ask him to reverse the situation: How would he feel in your shoes? And it's not simply that Betty is there; you're saying that she is effusive and touching your husband. That would be an issue for any second wife. I think the reason your husband is continuing to allow this has to be his ego. It feels really good when you've got two women who are both fighting for you. Maybe he thinks he can placate everyone. But by letting this go on, he's saying he doesn't care what you think or what your feelings are. And how could you possibly have a relationship that way? If you don't respect or care what your partner thinks, you don't have a marriage. TJH: Another possibility: He's a guy. He's an idiot. Sometimes we can be clueless about such things. It doesn't seem like much of an excuse, but could he just be unaware? AR: If that's the case, you need to just make a decision. You're either going to have to accept this and let it go — which is really hard — or do something, which could mean leaving the marriage. The worst thing you could do is nothing. TJH: Yes, and tell your husband, 'This is what I need from you. Are you able to provide it?' We're grown folks. You look directly at him and tell him what you want. We don't do ultimatums, but you have to confront this. And at some point, you have to stop blaming him if you continue to stay. If he's not willing to work on it, that's a red flag that he doesn't care. Meanwhile, your husband, Betty and even you are not keeping your eyes on what's important: making sure there isn't tension for the family. What do the grandkids want? Do they love Betty being around? Are they uncomfortable seeing how she is around your husband? Amy and I have dealt with tension in our blended families before. You have to put that first. Figure out what you, as the adults, need to do to ensure the kids and grandkids are OK. AR: For certain special events, it's important for the grandkids to have all the people in their lives there. But it doesn't mean that Betty needs to be all up on and all over your husband. There can be clear boundaries of no touching. The final word TJH: Well, it's hugging and kissing. Maybe this is just a hug when Betty and the husband see each other, and that's it? AR: Then do a fist bump instead. TJH: The grandparents need to ... dab up? AR: Dab up! I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't want anybody kissing on you! Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa US Senate candidate ends bid to run against Republican incumbent Joni Ernst
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa Democratic state lawmaker bowed out of the 2026 U.S. Senate primary race on Monday and endorsed a fellow legislator as the 'best hope' to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, who has yet to formally announce her bid for a third term. Rep. J.D. Scholten said in a statement he was suspending his campaign and endorsing Democratic Rep. Josh Turek, who launched his campaign last week. Both represent districts in counties that overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump in 2024. Turek joined a crowded primary field that includes state Sen. Zach Wahls, who on Monday announced the endorsement of a northeast Iowa iron workers union; Nathan Sage, a former chamber of commerce president; and Des Moines School Board Chair Jackie Norris. Eyes remain on Ernst as Republicans encountered early headaches in some of the 2026 races that will be pivotal to maintaining the party's Senate majority, including a contentious GOP primary in Texas and a surprise retirement announcement by two-term Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. After flipping pork chops last week at the Iowa State Fair, Ernst told reporters that she'd make an announcement on her own 2026 intentions in the next several weeks, adding, 'I've got a lot more work to do.' In a reelection bid, Ernst would face GOP primary challengers who include former state Sen. Jim Carlin and Navy veteran Joshua Smith. Of her Democratic competitors, Ernst said 'good for them.' 'When we see those Democrats getting in, what they're trying to do is get their name out there, but they cannot deny the fabulous agenda that President Trump has," Ernst said. 'Glad they're engaging but, you know what, they're not going to stand a chance.' Ernst announced a campaign manager in June, an October date for her annual fundraiser and has raised just shy of $1.8 million in the first half of the year. A former Army National Guard member and a retired lieutenant colonel, she was first elected to an open Senate seat in 2014. She served for several years in the No. 3 spot in the Senate GOP leadership and was considered a vice presidential contender for Trump's first White House run. She's since faced some backlash from Trump supporters, including earlier this year after signaling a hesitance to support Trump's pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. Democrats meanwhile are capitalizing on a retort Ernst made about Medicaid cuts at a town hall in May. As Ernst explained that the legislation protects Medicaid for those who need it most, someone in the crowd yelled that people will die without coverage. Ernst responded: 'People are not ... well, we all are going to die.'
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Well-mannered White House welcome for Ukraine leaves many questions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Gram Slattery WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gathered European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a hastily arranged White House meeting on Monday to discuss a path to ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Here are takeaways from the talks: WARM TONE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE Seven European leaders, the Ukrainian president, their motorcades, dozens of Trump administration staff and more than 100 journalists swarmed the White House campus on Monday in anticipation of the unusual meeting. Would Trump and Zelenskiy agree on a path to peace? Or would their latest Oval Office session devolve into a bitter squabble as in February? Neither scenario occurred. Zelenskiy, chided for his appearance and manner in February, adjusted both. Wearing more formal clothing and repeatedly expressing his gratitude to Trump, he was greeted by a far more complimentary U.S. president than in the past. But, despite Trump's vow to assist in Ukraine's security after a hypothetical peace deal, there was no immediate sign that any party had substantially changed position on land swaps, security guarantees or sanctions. Instead, Trump ended with promises to host a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the many remaining issues. HEAPING PRAISE "Have you said 'thank you' once?" U.S. Vice President JD Vance asked Zelenskiy in February, accusing him of failing to show sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. On Monday, Zelenskiy made sure that was not an issue. His opening remarks in the Oval Office included eight thank-yous, mostly for Trump. "Thank you so much, Mr. President ... thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you," Zelenskiy said. He included the U.S. first lady, who sent a letter to Putin about abducted children in Ukraine. "Using this opportunity, my thanks to your wife," the Ukrainian president said. "And thanks to all our partners and that you supported this format. And after our meeting, we're going to have leaders who are around us, the UK and France, Germany... all partners around Ukraine supporting us. Thanks (to) them. Thank you very much for your invitation." Unlike in February, Vance this time sat largely silent. COMBAT FORMAL The stakes of the meeting could not have been higher. But one of the most-asked questions among diplomats in D.C. could not have been more frivolous: Would the Ukrainian president wear a suit? The answer: kind of. Zelenskiy showed up to the White House in what one European diplomat described as "almost a suit." His black jacket had tiny lapels and jetted chest pockets. He did not wear a tie. His attire, which split the difference between the battlefield and the boardroom, could be described as combat formal. Those sartorial details matter when it comes to dealing with the U.S. president, who was upset that Zelenskiy did not wear a suit for their February meeting. Zelenskiy passed the fashion test this time, however. When one journalist in the Oval Office said Zelenskiy looked "fabulous," Trump chimed in to agree. "I said the same thing," Trump told reporters. DIVIDE OVER CEASEFIRE The assembled European leaders, Zelenskiy included, were careful to paper over policy disagreements with Trump, keeping their comments vague and showering the U.S. president with compliments. But one point of disagreement did bubble to the surface. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the assembled leaders and media that he wanted to see Putin agree to a ceasefire. Trump had long pushed for a ceasefire in Ukraine. But he largely jettisoned that goal after meeting with Putin last week in Alaska, a shift that was widely seen as a diplomatic defeat for Ukraine. The U.S. president now says he is fine trying to move directly to a peace deal. "To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," Merz said. "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire, so let's work on that." Trump pushed back, arguing he has solved many conflicts without first reaching a ceasefire. WHOSE BOOTS ON THE GROUND? One of the great mysteries that hung over the summit was what support the U.S. would give to secure any Russia-Ukraine deal long term. Trump hasn't offered U.S. troops' "boots on the ground" to guarantee Ukraine's security from Russia, reflecting American reticence to commit to military entanglements or a head-to-head confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, he has offered weapons sales and promised that Americans will do business in Ukraine, assurances that Ukrainians see as far less than a security guarantee. Europeans are preparing for a peacekeeping mission backed by their forces. Yet, asked explicitly whether U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine could include U.S. troops in the country, Trump did not rule it out. Instead, he teased an announcement as soon as Monday on the topic. "We'll let you know that, maybe, later today," Trump said. He said Europe was the "first line of defense" but that "we'll be involved." WHAT'S NEXT Trump said he would call Putin and set up a trilateral meeting with Ukraine at a time and place to be determined. Despite some private misgivings, the assembled leaders agreed that such a meeting was a logical next step. Still, the path forward is more complex than Trump and his allies are letting on. For one, Russia has delayed and obstructed high-level meetings with Ukraine in the past, and it was not immediately clear that Putin would actually sit down with Zelenskiy, who he frequently describes as an illegitimate leader. Additionally, it is unclear how much a principal-level meeting would actually advance the cause of peace. The gulf between the Russian and Ukrainian positions is vast. The Kremlin said on Monday the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is a non-starter, a stance that would be hard for Ukraine to swallow. Russia is also calling for Ukraine to fork over significant chunks of territory that Kyiv controls, another proposal that Ukraine's leaders are not entertaining.
