Politics
Harmful Parenting Phrases To Avoid When Disciplining Kids
As your child is screaming, throwing toys or refusing to listen, it can be easy to say something you don’t really mean when reminding them how they should be acting.
Disciplining kids is tough, especially if you’re also feeling frustrated or mad in the moment. But many of the ways today’s parents were disciplined as children are actually problematic – and experts warn that those approaches shouldn’t trickle down to the next generation.
“Parents discipline the way they were disciplined, even if we don’t realise it,” said Leda Kaveh, a licensed clinical psychologist and owner and director of Washington Psychological Wellness and Washington Insight Solution.
“Parenting behaviours are strongly influenced by early attachment experiences,” Kaveh continued, adding that cultural norms around obedience, as well as chronic stress and financial pressure, play a role.
If you have memories of a parent disciplining you in a way that didn’t feel affirming, there’s a chance you’re doing that to your child, too. (That is, if you haven’t worked through it in therapy or another way.)
Below, therapists share the phrases you really shouldn’t say to kids when disciplining them, and how they can be quite harmful.
“Why can’t you be more like your brother?”
Statements like “Why can’t you be more like your brother” – or sister, neighbour, cousin or whoever – are harmful for kids to hear.
It’s “basically a character attack,” said Nicola Pierre-Smith, a licensed professional counsellor and owner of Melanated Women’s Health in Philadelphia.
There’s also a comparison that’s being made, she noted, which can make the child feel like they’re not enough.
“You’re acting just like your father.”
Similarly, it may be common for some parents to say things like “you’re acting just like your father” or “just like your mother,” particularly if the parents are divorced or in an unhappy marriage.
Generally, this kind of phrase is used when focusing on negative attributes of a parent or when the identified parent figure is a “villain” within the family, according to Pierre-Smith.
Perhaps your mum is known for acting selfishly. If your dad spits out “You’re acting like your mother” after you act up, you’ll likely associate it with your mum’s “bad” behaviour.
This, too, is a character attack, Pierre-Smith explained. “It’s typically not said when there is a positive attribute to the identified person. It is really meant to be a character attack to the child.”
lechatnoir via Getty Images
“You’re such a disappointment.”
For a child who gets in trouble at school and comes home to a parent saying things like, “you’re a disappointment” or “you’re stupid,” it can be really damaging.
These kinds of phrases are meant to shame a child, Pierre-Smith said. This is true whether a parent intends to do this or not.
Research shows that children who experience frequent shame are at higher risk of anxiety and depression, and may grow up with self-worth problems.
“You have nothing to cry about.”
It’s pretty common for parents to shut down any tears or sensitivity during a tense moment. However, doing this is “teaching the child that certain emotions aren’t valid,” Pierre-Smith said.
Rejecting crying may also lead to children being unable to name their emotions, she added.
Kids who repeatedly hear phrases like this aren’t given the opportunity to develop language around emotions or understand what they’re feeling. “They just categorise them into ‘I’m feeling good’ or ‘I’m feeling bad,’ but not having the language to describe that.”
If you slip up and say one of these phrases here and there, it’s OK – but repeating them can be harmful.
Most parents have experienced getting swept up in the moment and saying something to their child that they regret. It’s not the one-off outburst that is inflicting harm. Instead, if you repeatedly discipline your child this way, it can be damaging, Kaveh said.
“When a child hears language that dismisses feelings or labels their behaviours as a personal flaw, the brain often shifts it into a stress response,” Kaveh explained.
“Over time, repeated experiences like this are associated with higher stress hormones such as cortisol, increased anxiety and emotional suppression, lower self-esteem and difficulty identifying and managing emotions later in life … It is a pattern over time that matters.”
If you do find yourself saying these phrases again and again, it’s worth thinking about how you were disciplined as a kid and what you may need to do to work through some of those experiences. Your own upbringing might be informing the way you parent, and it can take work to change, but it is possible.
“The encouraging news is that research shows parenting styles are highly adaptable. Increased awareness, education, therapy, moments of repair can significantly improve the parent-child relationships at any stage,” Kaveh said.
If you find it difficult to manage your emotions when you’re frustrated with your kids, there is “no shame in a parent actually reaching out to a professional or even someone in their school to get support with learning skills,” added Pierre-Smith.
Parents can be firm in their disciplining but should also be emotionally supportive.
“If you look at the research in developmental psychology, it shows that the most effective discipline is both firm and emotionally supportive,” Kaveh said.
“This approach is often also referred to as authoritative parenting, and is consistently associated with better emotional regulation, academic outcomes and mental health,” she noted.
According to Kaveh, effective discipline focuses on teaching, not punishment.
“This includes separating the child from the behaviour, acknowledging emotions while still setting limits and staying calm enough to model regulation,” Kaveh added.
Instead of saying “Stop crying,” you could say something like, “I see you’re really upset. I’m here. We still can’t throw toys, but we can figure out what you need,” she said.
This allows children to feel emotionally understood and receptive to guidance, Kaveh said.
“Feeling safe does not make kids less accountable. It actually makes learning possible,” she said.
Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.
A few days ago I organised a community forum in Parliament. Over 60 local constituents met our MP to discuss the proposed changes to settlement rules and how it affects Hong Kongers.
The discussion was not about open borders. It was not about special treatment. It was about something more fundamental:
What kind of immigrants does Britain actually want?
For years, our national debate has swung between two extremes. On one side, an open-door policy that forces Britain to accept everyone, including poorly integrated immigrants. On the other, a rising frustration that sees all immigration as inherently destabilising.
Conservatives should reject both.
If we believe in social cohesion and responsibility, our immigration policy must be selective, with benchmarks for integration and contribution.
And judged against that, Hong Kongers are not the problem, but rather the model immigrants that Britain should welcome.
Since the BN(O) route opened in 2020, Hong Kong arrivals have shown high employment rates, low (to almost none) welfare dependence, low crime involvement and rapid civic participation. Many have joined churches. Others have volunteered locally. I personally joined the Harrow Litter Pickers shortly after arriving because I see Harrow as my home now.
We do not march demanding Britain change for us. We adapt to Britain.
Yet the Government’s proposed changes risk unintentionally penalising Hong Kongers.
While the government claims that Hong Kongers remain on their 5-year to ILR route, the devil lies between the lines. Changes to income thresholds (from none to £12,570) and eligibility criteria (from B1 to B2 English) when many Hong Kong families are almost reaching settlement status are essentially punishing immigrants who followed the rules in good faith.
Salary is one proxy for economic integration, but it’s not the only one. The BN(O) route was never designed as a low-wage labour scheme. Many Hong Kong arrivals came with life savings, have invested in property, started small businesses, or are supporting children in British schools as full-fee payers. Others are elderly retirees with independent means. Some mothers have stepped back from employment due to caring responsibilities — a choice that British society has never treated as non-contribution when made by citizens.
A rigid income threshold risks mistaking administrative simplicity for serious policy design. It may filter out precisely the kinds of law-abiding, asset-holding households that Britain strives to welcome.
This is not a plea for leniency. It is a plea for predictability. That Hong Kong families will not be punished alongside other poorly integrated immigrants.
However, there seems to be a lack of such rhetoric in the party that introduced the BN(O) scheme back in 2020.
In the current political climate, many Conservative MPs are understandably cautious. With Reform polling strongly in parts of the country, any public support for a migrant group, risks being caricatured as weakness. But a confident Conservative Party should be able to distinguish between blanket hostility and selective endorsement.
Reform’s instinct is blunt opposition to migration in all forms. Labour’s approach is bureaucratic rigidity that fails to recognise contribution.The Conservative approach should be different: firm control overall, but clear differentiation between those who integrate and those who do not.
There are already colleagues who understand this.
I have had the privilege of meeting Sir Iain Duncan Smith (MP for Chingford and Woodford Green) and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (MP for Solihull West and Shirley), both of whom have been consistent voices of support for Hong Kongers. Their backing has never been rooted in sentimentality. It is rooted in principle: that Britain should stand by those who integrate, contribute and align with our values.
They understand that support for Hong Kongers is not a contradiction of conservative immigration policy, but rather an expression of it.
Kemi Badenoch has similarly indicated that routes such as BN(O) should remain protected. That instinct is correct. It reflects a broader truth: firmness on illegal or non-integrating migration must sit alongside clarity about the types of migrants Britain actively welcomes.
If we fail to make those distinctions, we leave the field to those who argue all migration is harmful, or to those who refuse to recognise legitimate public concern. But if we have the confidence to say that some migration strengthens Britain, and to defend that position, we reclaim the intellectual ground. Hong Kongers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for consistency with the very principles Conservatives claim to uphold.
If the Party believes in contribution and integration, then Hong Kongers are not liabilities. We are the case study.
The question is whether the Conservative Party has the confidence to say so?
3 min read
No matter what one feels about the principle of legalising assisted dying, the opinion of the Senedd can’t just be ignored.
This week, we will see the Welsh Senedd vote on the Legislative Consent Motion for the Assisted Dying Bill. It is a bill that changes the criminal law but predominantly focuses on establishing a system for doctors to provide lethal substances to terminally ill patients as a matter of healthcare, changing the relationship between patients, doctors and the NHS.
This means a vote on something that would normally be under the Welsh government’s control, and which has been under Welsh control for almost three decades.
Under a Labour government, I never thought I’d see Wales being railroaded into such a profound change without the consent of the Senedd. A change like this would never happen for a government policy, so why should we let it happen by stealth through a Private Members’ Bill?
The Senedd has already voted against the principle of assisted dying (19 in favour, 26 against) once. Yet the Bill was introduced, extending measures to Wales. Amendments to give Welsh ministers a genuine choice on whether to implement an assisted dying service were stripped out; as it stands, the criminal law will be repealed, leaving Wales in legal limbo, and putting pressure on Wales to catch up with England.
These concerns are particularly acute for me as a Welsh MP and as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. No matter what one feels about the principle, Wales, devolution, and the opinion of the Senedd cannot be disregarded just because it is convenient for Westminster’s Private Members’ Bill process.
As both the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and Health and Social Care Committee have pointed out, there are serious concerns about the practical readiness of the Welsh NHS, including the risk of diverting funding from palliative and end-of-life care, workforce shortages, training demands, and the availability of Welsh-language provision. A decision in this area has significant ramifications for the delivery of broader health and social care policy.
What message have we sent the Welsh people, Welsh voters, ahead of the Senedd elections in May? We cannot send a message that we simply don’t care what they think, that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that it will be imposed on them anyway.
Devolution matters. The voice of Wales matters.
If Welsh members exercise their right and vote against this week, Westminster must listen – it cannot be right that they are forced to implement a policy that they do not agree with.
To railroad the NHS in Wales into delivering a service that Wales doesn’t believe in would be against everything that we stand for.
When we look at other jurisdictions that have approved similar legislation, many have found themselves on a slippery slope when it comes to scope. A badly-drafted law being imposed on a devolved nation in this way isn’t right, particularly given that it is a Private Members’ Bill that has been brought forward with the bare minimum of scrutiny or preparation.
Normally, a government bill would include significant preparatory work, pre-legislative scrutiny, impact assessments, and indeed consideration as to the impact on the devolved nations, and careful intergovernmental work. This Bill hasn’t had that, and we run the real risk of putting in place an unworkable and unsafe law that will be damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Wales deserves better than being railroaded into a life-or-death policy change that it has voted against.
Ruth Jones is Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn
Scandal broke at the 2026 British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAS) as actors Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo during the presentation for Best Visual Effects award to Avatar: Fire and Ash were heckled by Tourettes campaigner John Davidson in which Davidson was heard calling both actors the n-word, with a hard r.
Whether many of us would like to admit it or not, we live in a highly contradictory society. The story that a country like Britain often tells itself (particularly from the right wing but also in some liberal circles) is that racism isn’t significant in our so-called progressive liberal society. Every so often cracks in those sentiments expose what has for a long time been part of the underbelly of British culture.
Criticism of the BBC
Across social media there has been a mixture of shock, disgust and an outpouring of sympathy towards Jordan and Lindo. There were criticisms aimed at the BBC who aired the slur being yelling out in their delayed broadcast, but edited out Akinola Davies Jr saying ‘free Palestine’:
With a two-hour delay, the BBC could’ve removed the N-word slur from its BAFTA coverage, and chose not to.
Meanwhile, it cut Akinola Davies Jr saying “Free Palestine”.
A clear editorial decision driven by fear of pro-Israel lobby groups. Shame on them.
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 23, 2026
And, one cultural critic did what many refused and failed to do, summed up both the reality of Tourettes and the painful experience suffered by Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, and Black people in audiences both in the studio and at home:
Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how…
— Zak (@zakfilm) February 22, 2026
The full tweet above reads:
Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how successful they get can still face these type of slurs or remarks anywhere, but there needs to be a space to have these conversations with nuance and seek to learn disabilities that most of us do not know about let alone understand. If anything the organisers are to blame for not giving a thorough statement and providing more context to the artists that go on stage in case things like this happen to them.
The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?
The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?
— princess thighana of wales (@lidlkim_) February 22, 2026
Contextual understanding
However, beyond these criticisms was a much deeper and broader debate about where the line between neurological disorder and racism begins and ends. There were some people online who argued that John Davidson’s outbursts should be understood properly in the context of a disability that he cannot control and that it wasn’t a product of racism as argued here:
I understand this might be shocking but please try to understand he didn’t mean it and can’t control I have it and I promise you it doesn’t make you shout what you think like some people believe
— Flynn 🏴🏳️🌈 (@TorchwoodTales) February 22, 2026
This was reinforced by the BAFTAS host Alan Cumming who took an opportunity at the show to tell the audience about Davidson’s tourettes and to thank the audience for “their understanding and helping create a respectful space for everyone.” These sentiments largely failed to land with many Black audiences who have argued that Black people should not have to deal with racist abuse under any circumstances. Moreover many found the defense of Davidson as yet another chapter in the act of diminishing the seriousness of anti-Black racism:
look, i’m finna b real w/ u. nobody cares. at the end of the day, he said the worst word in the english lexicon. the least he could’ve done was provide a meaningful apology… and he didn’t. black ppl are expected to get over everything.
— ;!juggie$t . (@chvnchilla) February 22, 2026
What tourettes can tell us about racism in British society
While arguments about the need to understand Tourette’s syndrome have validity, this incident is very revealing about the presence of racism in our culture. Tourette’s syndrome is defined as a motor disorder characterised by involuntary tics. It is very likely that John Davidson’s Tourette’s is classified as coprolalia which is expressed in the form of tics that are involuntarily obscene, derogatory and offensive. While I accept that Tourette’s syndrome itself is not intrinsically racist in any neurological way, what was expressed came from something environmental. At the end of the day John Davidson saw two Black men and his Tourette’s syndrome drew upon the association of the term ‘n****r’ and Black people.
It is not known if Davidson is racist or not and it probably doesn’t matter, because his Tourettes drew on a social artifact to express itself as a racist outburst. What John Davidson’s Tourette’s syndrome tells us is that racism exists very much in our society and culture and if it didn’t then Davidson would have likely said something else that would not be rooted in an anti-Black racism.
Featured image via the Canary
The fight over this year’s House map is barreling through the nation’s courtrooms.
High-stakes legal cases that could determine the majority loom in nearly a dozen states, with just months to go until the November election. The wave of court cases follows a 2025 that was marked by fiercely political showdowns, with high-profile walkouts, rare Republican defections President Donald Trump and a hugely expensive ballot initiative in California.
And in addition to the state-by-state fights, one case before the Supreme Court — Louisiana v. Callais — has the ability to blow up the entire map.
“There was a lot of political action in ’25, and that’s turning to the courthouse now, this year,” said Justin Levitt, a former adviser to President Joe Biden on democracy and voting rights and a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “It’s not just the Supreme Court. These are fights about individual state practices all over the place.”
In Missouri, for example, there are multiple lawsuits — and a ballot measure effort — to try and halt the GOP-led redraw there. In Florida, Democrats are already trying to get ahead of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ planned April redraw with a lawsuit that argues he lacks the authority to call for it. Cases in Utah, New York and Wisconsin that could shift seats are still playing out even as voters gear up for primaries.
In Maryland, the National Republican Congressional Committee has retained a lawyer to handle any potential redistricting challenges there, according to two people familiar with the hiring granted anonymity to discuss it. In Virginia, the state Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the Democratic remapping effort — which still needs to go before voters — is legal, with state Democratic officials vowing to challenge decisions from lower state courts that freeze the gerrymandering push.
Waiting for the court process to play out means organizations dedicated to redistricting are navigating both political and legal challenges simultaneously — and that voters and election officials have no real idea what district lines they may be asked to use, in some cases, in a manner of weeks.
“That’s something we’re used to at this point,” said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Running full steam on the political side or campaign side while waiting for court rulings or engaging court processes has been an ever-present reality for us.”
That isn’t to say there weren’t any major court decisions in 2025, nor that there will be no political fighting this year. Already, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have been ramping up pressure on state Senate Leader Bill Ferguson, a fellow Democrat who opposes the effort. Florida lawmakers have squabbled over what timing is best to take up the issue, and Virginia may see an expensive ballot measure fight play out over its map.
By far the biggest legal fight is Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court case which centers around Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That case could upend the House map by eliminating a legal interpretation of Section 2 — which broadly outlaws discrimination based on race in elections — that has resulted in states drawing districts where minority voters make up at least half the population.
The end of Section 2 would give red states, especially in the South, the ability to draw out more than a dozen Democratic-held seats, an analysis from liberal groups last year found.
While many legal scholars, including Levitt, expect the decision to come at the end of the term in June — which could prevent any redraws from taking place before the midterms — the Supreme Court could hand down its ruling whenever it wants, and some states are prepared to quickly redraw.
A June decision would likely “radically reshape, not just congressional, but local and state maps for ’27 and ’28,” Levitt said.
“A really really big decision upends every map across the country,” he said, cautioning that he doesn’t expect a ruling to go there. “I think it’s entirely possible that the court here says, ‘you know what, never mind,’ it looks over the edge of the cliff and says, ‘oh, that’s really scary.’”
The court’s next scheduled opinion days are Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
There are several other major decisions pending in other courts. In Virginia, Republicans have won victories in two cases in front of the same Tazewell County judge, although many in the state expect the state Supreme Court to have the final word on if the voter referendum on April 21 will go ahead.
In Utah, a federal panel ruled on Monday that it would not block the new court-ordered map, which gave one blue-leaning seat to Democrats last year. Republicans may appeal, but the decision — and a recent state Supreme Court ruling rejecting another GOP appeal — could lock the lines in place for 2026. And in New York, two state courts have sided with Democrats hoping to draw one more blue-leaning seat in a surprise win, but Republicans have vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s not uncommon for redistricting to end up before judges, but the unusual mid-cycle battle has added fuel to a fire that was already burning.
“Redistricting cycles have phases. Map drawing, then litigation, then sometimes more mapdrawing. This mid-decade cycle is no different,” said Adam Kincaid, the president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who redrew the Texas map last year that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. “There will be several legal fights in the months ahead.”
But with the map still uncertain just months away from November — and as primary season begins — the lengthy legal process complicates how election workers can prepare ballots, and can lead to confusion for voters.
“These things take a real toll on election officials and voters,” David Becker, founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said of mid-decade redistricting. “These things make it very difficult for election officials to manage the workload with less resources than they’ve ever had.”
A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.
From the “flamingo” position, which has been linked to hypermobility, to sleeping on your left side (which may be the best option), how you sleep matters.
And according to research conducted at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, how partners (literally) lie together might reveal how they feel about their relationship.
Professor Richard Wiseman asked 1,000 partnered people to describe their ideal sleeping position, their personality, and their relationship satisfaction.
“One of the most important differences involved touching”, he said: couples who stayed in physical contact throughout the night were more likely to say they were in a happy relationship.
Which sleeping positions were most popular?
Among those Professor Wiseman surveyed, the most popular couple’s sleeping positions were:
Then, there was the question of distance.
12% of couples slept less than 2.54cm (an inch) apart, and 2% spent the night over 76.2cm (30 inches) apart.
What did couples’ sleeping positions say about their relationship satisfaction?
In this research, the further apart a couple slept, the less likely they were to report high relationship satisfaction.
86% of those who slept less than 2.54cm apart said they were happy in their relationship, with that figure dipping to 66% for those who slept over 76.2cm apart.
“One of the most important differences involved touching, with 94% of couples who spent the night in contact with one another were happy with their relationship, compared to just 68% of those that didn’t touch,” Professor Wiseman said.
The survey also suggested that more extroverted people tended to sleep closer to their partners, while creative people were more likely to sleep on their left side.
“This is the first survey to examine couples’ sleeping positions, and the results allow people to gain an insight into someone’s personality and relationship by simply asking them about their favourite sleeping position,” Professor Wiseman said.
Labour has been installed as the bookies’ favourites to win the next general election after 18 months out in the cold.
Keir Starmer’s party has been trailing in both the opinion polls and the betting odds for most of the prime minister’s time in office, but it looks like Labour are finally enjoying a stroke of luck.
Star Sports have narrowed Labour’s odds of winning the most seats at the next general election to13/8 from 15/8 last week.
Meanwhile Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has gone the other way as the party’s odds drifted from 13/8 to 15/8.
William Kedjanyi, political betting analyst at Star Sports, said Labour have been going up in the market after ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe unveiled his rival party: Restore Britain.
The right-wing party appears to have threatened Reform’s success, with 10/1 odds compared to 20/1 last week.
They’re getting closer to the Greens, who sit at 17/2 and the Conservatives at 6/1 as betters try to predict who will be most popular at the next general election.
Kedjanyi said: “It’s been 18 months since we saw Labour as favourites to win most seats at the next General Election, but Keir Starmer’s party have been in the ascendency in the market, shortening into 13/8 from 15/8 in the past week to supplant Reform at the head of the betting.
“That change has largely been driven by the introduction of Restore Britain to the growing number of political parties set to contest the next General Election, and they look likely to eat into the Reform vote.
“As a result, Nigel Farage’s party has drifted out to 15/8 from 13/8 and now have ground to make up on Starmer’s Labour in the betting.”
The odds looking at who might be the next permanent prime minister after Starmer also favour Labour, with former deputy PM Angela Rayner leading with 7/2 odds and health secretary Wes Streeting just behind her on 6/1.
Farage comes in third on 7/1 closely followed by energy secretary Ed Miliband on 8/1.
The bookmakers’ update will come as a relief to Labour, as the party has been struggled to connect with disillusioned voters frustrated with a series of government scandals and Starmer’s policy U-turns.
However, pollsters at YouGov have still put Labour on 19% in the opinion polls, trailing behind Reform who sit comfortably in the lead on 24%.
The Conservatives are snapping at Labour’s heels on 18% while the Greens are on 17% and the Lib Dems are on 13%.
President Donald Trump is really acing it …when it comes to being unpopular.
The president’s disapproval rating is the highest it’s been in five years, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll. The data, which was published on Sunday, comes just before Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.
MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images
Conducted between February 12 17 among 2,589 US adults, the poll places Trump’s current approval rating at 39% positive and 60% negative. The Post also highlighted how nearly half of respondents — 47% — said they strongly disapprove. This number trumps those who say they strongly approve, of the president’s performance which was only 19%.
In November 2025, the Post, ABC News and Ipsos released a similar poll that showed 59% of US adults disapproved of Trump’s handling of the presidency, while 41% approved. At the time, this was considered Trump’s highest disapproval rating in his second term.
But the Post reported on Sunday that the last time Trump received a disapproval rating of 60% was in 2021 — shortly after the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
Respondents seemed most annoyed with the way Trump is affecting their pocketbooks.
Inflation got the highest disapproval rating at 65%, with only 32% approving. The next highest disapproval rating was followed by tariffs on imported goods, which received a 64% disapproval rating. Americans also don’t seem particularly pleased with the way the rest of the world is currently viewing them, with U.S. relations with other countries receiving a 62% disapproval rating.
And thanks to the recent nightmare that unfolded in Minneapolis, the majority of respondents also said that Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown is giving them the ick — with 58% of respondents disapproving.
Russia is executing soldiers in Ukraine for refusing orders, according to Vladimir Putin’s own troops.
The servicemen offered up horrifying tales of what life is like for the Russian army as the Ukraine war enters its fifth year, including how the soldiers are forced to kill one another.
Speaking to the BBC’s documentary, The Zero Line: Inside Russia’s War, one man said he saw a soldier killed on the order of his commander who was previously rewarded as a “Hero of Russia” in 2024.
Another said he saw 20 bodies of fellow soldiers lying in a pit after being executed by their own side.
The men have given detailed accounts of how they were tortured for refusing to take part in the offensives which they say amounted to suicide missions.
Troops reportedly call these moves “meat storms”.
One soldier told the BBC he is the only survivor from a group of 79 men whom he was mobilised with.
He claimed he was tortured and urinated on because he refused to go on the frontline, while others would be electrocuted, starved and then forced across the front line unarmed.
One man, named Dima, said: “I have dreams. I see [a] forest full of dead bodies, just smashed people with faces, dirty white mouths full of blood. The smell… it doesn’t smell, it tastes.”
He added: “I’m a criminal, and nobody cares – my crime is just I don’t want to kill.”
Their revelations come after Russia has suffered an estimated 1.2 million casualties – including up to 325,000 troops deaths – between February 2022 and December 2025, according to the UK’s Ministry of Defence.
Putin has continued to force his soldiers forward at a high rate of attrition for minimal gain just in the hope of securing more Ukrainian land.
Russian currently holds around a fifth of Ukraine’s sovereign territory but Putin is determined to seize the last 10% of the Donbas region in the east.
While Donald Trump has attempted trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US, Putin is sticking to his maximalist goals and refusing to compromise unless he gets the Donbas.
The Kremlin has also suppressed almost all public opposition to the invasion, even as its economy struggles to stay afloat with the rising cost of war.
The Russian government said its armed forces “operate with utmost restraint, as far as possible under the conditions of a high-intensity conflict, treating their personnel with maximum care”.
A spokesperson said information regarding alleged violations and crimes is duly investigated, telling the BBC they have been “unable to independently verify the accuracy or authenticity” of its report.
Putin has long been accused of deploying “meat grinder” tactics on the battlefield.
Previous MoD reports suggest soldiers have struggled with widespread alcohol issues and that Putin is forcing abducted Ukrainian children to fight against fellow Ukrainians on the battlefield.
In a statement issued on Monday night, Robert’s family confirmed that he had taken his own life, following what they described as a “nearly two-decade battle with bipolar disorder”.
Hilary Duff, who played Robert’s on-screen daughter in the Disney show between 2001 and 2004, shared a tribute to her former co-star shortly after the announcement.
“This one hurts,” Hilary wrote on Instagram. “It’s really hard to face this reality about an old friend. There was so much warmth in the McGuire family and I always felt so cared for by my on-screen parents. I’ll be forever grateful for that.
“I’m deeply sad to learn Bobby was suffering. My heart aches for him, his family, and everyone who loved him,” she added, alongside a broken-hearted emoji.
Meanwhile, Jake Thomas, who played Lizzie’s little brother Matt, wrote on his Instagram: “I was fortunate to know Bobby for most of my life. And he was one of the coolest guys you could ever meet. Funny, pragmatic, sometimes cranky, always a little eccentric. He was a talented actor, musician and director. But more than anything, he was family.
“I have many fond memories of being with him and his family throughout my life. Good moments, challenging moments and lots of laughs in between.”
He continued: “I looked up to him growing up. And later, I came to realise he thought I was pretty neat, too. So I guess I was doing something right.”
Alongside playing Sam McGuire, Robert appeared in the 1984 cult classic Revenge Of The Nerds, as well as Escape From LA, The Long Riders and Django Unchained.
His most recent on-screen credit was in the 2024 Western thriller The Night They Came Home, although the actor has three films currently in production, which are set to be released posthumously.
Per Deadline, Robert is survived by “his children, grandchildren, brothers, nieces, nephews and anyone who had the honour of having him in their life”.
Help and support:
- Mind, open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm on 0300 123 3393.
- Samaritans offers a listening service which is open 24 hours a day, on 116 123 (UK and ROI – this number is FREE to call and will not appear on your phone bill).
- CALM (the Campaign Against Living Miserably) offer a helpline open 5pm-midnight, 365 days a year, on 0800 58 58 58, and a webchat service.
- The Mix is a free support service for people under 25. Call 0808 808 4994 or email help@themix.org.uk
- Rethink Mental Illness offers practical help through its advice line which can be reached on 0808 801 0525 (Monday to Friday 10am-4pm). More info can be found on rethink.org.
Nick Robinson skewered Ed Davey over his past praise for the “excellent job” the then Prince Andrew was doing as the UK’s trade envoy.
The Lib Dem leader was left embarrassed during an excruciating grilling on Radio 4′s Today programme.
Davey is forcing a vote in the House of Commons today which could force the government to publish all documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment and performance as trade envoy.
He said: “I think we’ve seen too often in the past that people, because of their title or their friends or whatever, have not been properly held to account.
“The rules of the House of Commons have prevented, and Speakers have overseen this over the centuries, prevented MPs from criticising members of the Royal Family and sometimes even mentioning them, and that really seems old fashioned and is the wrong thing to do.”
But Robinson told him: “It’s what you did when you were a minister though, isn’t it?”
Davey then admitted praising the job the then Prince Andrew did as UK trade envoy during a Commons debate in 2011, when he was business minister in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government.
“I regret doing that,” he said.
Robinson said: “You said the Duke of York’s done ‘an excellent job’. You said he’s been ‘a longstanding success in the role’, you said he’s ‘a real asset for our country, supporting UK business’.
“And concerns being raised by a Labour backbencher, Paul Flynn, at the time, echoing the concerns of human rights groups about Prince Andrew, you dismissed as ‘innuendo’.”
The Lib Dem leader replied: “First of all, can I apologise to all those victims of Epstein who may have read those words and been upset by them. I really regret them.
“I was taking over a debate from another minister and wasn’t really over the brief.”
Robinson went on to remind Davey that he had criticised Flynn for bringing the debate, saying his “timing is particularly inappropriate as it comes four days after the Royal wedding [between William and Kate], when I believe the whole country showed the support that they give to the Royal Family”.
“It’s quite embarrassingly at odds with what you’re now saying, isn’t it,” Robinson asked him.
Davey said: “Yes. I didn’t know what we now know back then and it’s interesting to note that the prime minister at the time ensured that Prince Andrew stood down from the role two months later.
“So clearly someone in government did know there were huge problems with the way he was conducting his role.”
He added: “I’m pretty angry, to be honest, that I was put in that position.”
But Robinson then asked: “Shouldn’t you have learned that people in power should not merely read out words provided for them criticising others who raise questions, and not go back to their office and say ‘how do we know this is actually true’?”
The Lib Dem leader said: “I wish I hadn’t said those words, and I think we are all learning that the need to make sure that whatever position of power is held by an individual, they are accountable for that.”
Langley Moor High Street house will be turned into flats
Ashley Madison rebrands, shifts from affairs to ‘discreet dating’
Ethereum Foundation starts 70,000 ETH staking process to fund operations, bolster network
-
Video4 days agoXRP News: XRP Just Entered a New Phase (Almost Nobody Noticed)
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Boden – Corporette.com
-
Politics2 days agoBaftas 2026: Awards Nominations, Presenters And Performers
-
Sports16 hours agoWomen’s college basketball rankings: Iowa reenters top 10, Auriemma makes history
-
Politics17 hours agoNick Reiner Enters Plea In Deaths Of Parents Rob And Michele
-
Business6 days agoInfosys Limited (INFY) Discusses Tech Transitions and the Unique Aspects of the AI Era Transcript
-
Entertainment6 days agoKunal Nayyar’s Secret Acts Of Kindness Sparks Online Discussion
-
Tech6 days agoRetro Rover: LT6502 Laptop Packs 8-Bit Power On The Go
-
Sports5 days agoClearing the boundary, crossing into history: J&K end 67-year wait, enter maiden Ranji Trophy final | Cricket News
-
Business2 days agoMattel’s American Girl brand turns 40, dolls enter a new era
-
Crypto World4 hours agoXRP price enters “dead zone” as Binance leverage hits lows
-
Business2 days agoLaw enforcement kills armed man seeking to enter Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, officials say
-
Entertainment6 days agoDolores Catania Blasts Rob Rausch For Turning On ‘Housewives’ On ‘Traitors’
-
NewsBeat1 day ago‘Hourly’ method from gastroenterologist ‘helps reduce air travel bloating’
-
Business6 days agoTesla avoids California suspension after ending ‘autopilot’ marketing
-
Tech2 days agoAnthropic-Backed Group Enters NY-12 AI PAC Fight
-
NewsBeat2 days agoArmed man killed after entering secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says
-
Politics2 days agoMaine has a long track record of electing moderates. Enter Graham Platner.
-
Crypto World6 days agoWLFI Crypto Surges Toward $0.12 as Whale Buys $2.75M Before Trump-Linked Forum
-
Crypto World5 days ago83% of Altcoins Enter Bear Trend as Liquidity Crunch Tightens Grip on Crypto Market