Kids TV presenter Ms. Rachel has hit back at critics who say she shouldn’t be political because of her job — making it clear she sees speaking up for children as part of the role.

Her comments come amid growing attention on the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, an ICE-run facility where children and families are being held. Ms. Rachel (Rachel Accurso) has been actively campaigning to shut it down, even speaking directly with detained children and working alongside lawyers and advocates to push for their release.

The facility itself has become highly controversial. At its peak earlier this year, it held hundreds of children, and has faced repeated scrutiny over conditions — including concerns raised by lawyers and advocates about medical care, food quality, and overall treatment of detainees.

In response to backlash, Ms. Rachel posted:

“I am political. It’s political to believe that children are worthy of love and care… and that our care shouldn’t stop at a border.”

Her message is part of a broader push to bring attention to what’s happening inside the facility — and to challenge the idea that advocating for children should ever be considered controversial.

In Mason County, Kentucky, 82-year-old farmer Ida Huddleston and her daughter Delsia Bare have turned down a combined $26 million offer from a developer linked to a major tech company that wants to build a massive data center on their land.

The family owns hundreds of acres of farmland near Maysville, where land typically sells for a fraction of what they were offered—making the deal roughly 10x above market value.

Despite promises of jobs and economic growth, they refused. For them, the land is generational—worked by their family for decades and still producing food.

“$26 million doesn’t mean anything… I’ll stay and hold and feed a nation,” Bare said, while Huddleston added simply: “I’m staying put.”

The proposed data center could still move forward using nearby land, but their decision has struck a chord—highlighting a growing tension across rural America as Big Tech expands into farmland and families weigh profit against preservation.

This really puts things into perspective

A side-by-side comparison shows just how massive polar bears are compared to American black bears. Polar bears are the largest bear species on Earth. Adult males can weigh hundreds of kilograms more, grow up to 8 to 10 feet long, and even reach around 10 feet when standing upright. Their size alone highlights their incredible strength and dominance.

In contrast, American black bears are much smaller. They usually weigh far less, are shorter in length, and stand lower at the shoulder. While they are still strong and impressive animals, the difference becomes clear when placed next to a polar bear.

This size difference comes from adaptation. Polar bears evolved to survive in extreme Arctic conditions, developing thick fat layers and large paws for hunting and moving across ice

Black bears, living in forests, adapted for agility and a varied diet

Different environments, different builds — but both are truly remarkable animals

More than two dozen House Democrats — led by Jared Huffman and Jamie Raskin — are demanding a formal investigation into Pete Hegseth after hundreds of U.S. service members reportedly complained that military commanders were promoting end-times Christian ideology as justification for the war with Iran.

The complaints were submitted to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which says it has received more than 200 reports from troops across multiple branches since the conflict escalated. According to the group, some soldiers claim commanders suggested the war had a biblical or apocalyptic purpose and even described Donald Trump as being “anointed by Jesus.”

Lawmakers say the allegations raise serious concerns about religious coercion and politicization inside the U.S. military, and are calling for the Pentagon to investigate whether troops are being pressured with ideological messaging while deployed.

A White House reporter is being praised online after confronting Donald Trump during a press conference about the war with Iran.

Shawn McCreesh, a correspondent for The New York Times, challenged the president after Trump suggested that Iran may have bombed its own elementary school using a Tomahawk cruise missile.

McCreesh pushed back directly:

“You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a Tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school… but you're the only person in your government saying this. Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that. Why are you the only person saying this?”

Trump replied: “Because I just don’t know enough about it.”

The exchange came as reporters pressed the administration about the deadly strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, southern Iran, where around 160 people — many of them children — were reported killed during the early wave of attacks in the conflict.

Open-source investigators and journalists have since analyzed geolocated video and satellite imagery from the scene. One widely circulated clip appears to show a Tomahawk cruise missile striking a compound next to the school.

Tomahawks are long-range precision cruise missiles developed and primarily used by the United States, typically launched from U.S. Navy destroyers or submarines and capable of traveling hundreds of miles before striking a target with high accuracy. Iran is not known to possess Tomahawk systems, which is why the president’s suggestion immediately drew scrutiny in the briefing room.

The exchange quickly spread online, with many praising McCreesh for directly challenging the claim during a live White House press briefing.