The announcement was made in Dunham’s first-person account, titled “Lena Dunham Is a Mother! The Sweet, Singular Story of How She Prepared.” The essay focuses on her path to parenthood, her relationship with the surrogate and the birth of her daughter.

The child’s name has not been publicly disclosed.

Dunham wrote that her daughter was born in August, 13 days after her expected delivery date. She described the birth as taking place “in the face of a solar eclipse and a meteor shower.”

A long fertility journey

In the Vogue essay, Dunham wrote that she had spent 12 years “circling the fertility drain,” a phrase reported by The New York Times.

Dunham’s account describes surrogacy as the route through which she and Felber welcomed their daughter. Reporting by Page Six said the embryo transfer took place in November, based on details in the essay.

The identity of the surrogate has not been made public. Dunham wrote about being present during labor and expressed admiration for the woman who carried the pregnancy.

Dunham’s public discussion of fertility and reproductive healthcare follows earlier reporting about her own reproductive health. However, the new announcement centers on the birth of her daughter rather than providing a comprehensive medical account.

The birth

According to Dunham’s account, she was beside the surrogate during labor. She wrote that her attention was initially fixed on the surrogate’s experience and that she did not look down until she heard the baby cry.

Dunham described seeing her daughter for the first time and greeting her by saying, “Hello. I’m your mama.”

She also wrote that the baby did not look as she had imagined but was “exactly right,” according to excerpts published by Reuters and The Guardian.

The New York Times reported that Dunham described herself after holding the newborn as “bashful and dizzy with joy.”

Dunham and Felber

Dunham and Felber married in September 2021, according to Reuters and The New York Times.

Dunham is known for creating and starring in HBO’s Girls, as well as for her work as an actor, filmmaker and author.

Felber is a musician, and the couple’s daughter is their first child together.

The couple’s announcement comes as Dunham continues to promote her creative work while also writing publicly about a private and emotionally significant part of her life.

What Dunham has shared—and what remains private

Dunham has shared the broad circumstances of her daughter’s birth, including that the child was born via surrogate, arrived in August and was 13 days overdue.

She has not publicly identified the surrogate or announced the baby’s name.

The published accounts do not report additional medical details about the child, and no further information about the family’s future plans has been independently confirmed.

Dunham’s announcement therefore establishes three central facts: she and Felber have welcomed a daughter, the child was born through surrogacy, and Dunham chose a personal Vogue essay to describe the experience.

O’Donnell will temporarily replace Rachel Dratch, who is taking a short leave from the production and is scheduled to return on Tuesday, October 20.

The engagement will take place at Studio 54 in New York City, where the revival is currently playing.

The announcement was made by the production’s producers on Wednesday, September 16.

For O’Donnell, the appearance represents a return to Broadway after a long absence from the stage.

Playbill reported that the engagement will be O’Donnell’s return to Broadway after 21 years, apart from an appearance at the 68th annual Tony Awards in 2014.

O’Donnell’s Broadway Career

O’Donnell previously appeared on Broadway in Grease, Seussical and Fiddler on the Roof.

In Fiddler on the Roof, she played Golde opposite Harvey Fierstein’s Tevye in 2005.

Her Broadway credits also include playing the Cat in the Hat in Seussical and Rizzo in the 1994 revival of Grease.

O’Donnell also produced the Broadway musical Taboo, which opened in 2003.

More recently, she presented her one-person show, Common Knowledge, at the Daryl Roth Theatre Off Broadway in July.

Playbill reported that O’Donnell moved to Ireland full-time in 2025, making the October engagement a short return to the United States.

The Role of the Narrator

The Narrator guides audiences through The Rocky Horror Show, a musical written by Richard O’Brien.

Dratch has played the role during the current Broadway production and received a Tony Award nomination for Best Featured Actress in a Musical for her performance as the Narrator.

The production’s current cast includes Lorna Courtney as Janet, Amber Gray as Riff Raff, Kevin McHale as Brad, Jimin Moon as Rocky, George Salazar as Eddie and Dr. Scott, Sherie Rene Scott as Magenta, Jake Shears as Frank-N-Furter and Valentina as Columbia.

Sam Pinkleton directs the revival.

The creative team also includes choreographer Ani Taj, music director and orchestrator Kris Kukul, set designer dots, costume designer David I. Reynoso, lighting designer Jane Cox and sound designer Brian Ronan.

A Revival With Queer Cultural Roots

The Rocky Horror Show follows Brad and Janet, a conventional couple whose encounter with the inhabitants of a mysterious house exposes them to a world of sexual and gender nonconformity.

The musical features the character Frank-N-Furter, a gender-nonconforming scientist, and songs including “Sweet Transvestite,” “The Time Warp,” “Dammit Janet” and “Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me.”

The stage musical premiered at London’s Royal Court Theatre in 1973.

It reached Broadway in 1975, where the initial production ran for three previews and 45 performances.

The property became more widely known through the 1975 film adaptation, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which starred Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, Susan Sarandon as Janet and Barry Bostwick as Brad.

The film developed a long-running participatory screening culture, with audiences often attending in costume and responding aloud to the movie.

Playbill described the property as having a continuing association with sexual and gender acceptance.

Broadway Run and Box Office Performance

The current Broadway revival began previews on March 26 and officially opened on April 23.

The production has extended its run twice, with tickets currently available through February 28, 2027.

The revival received nine Tony Award nominations, including a nomination for Best Revival of a Musical.

The production also set a Studio 54 house record for the week ending June 28, taking in $1,215,225 at the box office.

The engagement gives audiences a limited opportunity to see O’Donnell perform the Narrator before Dratch resumes the role on October 20.

ABC announced Shum as part of the Season 35 celebrity cast on September 2, pairing him with professional dancer Jenna Johnson. The season’s two-night premiere began September 15 and was scheduled to continue September 16 on ABC and Disney+.

Shum is widely associated with dance-focused performances, including his role as Mike Chang on Glee and appearances in the Step Up film franchise. ABC’s cast announcement described him as an actor, dancer, producer and publisher, and identified him as a current star of Grey’s Anatomy.

Those credits prompted criticism from some viewers who argued that Shum, along with other contestants who have prior dance experience, could enter the show with an advantage over celebrities who have never performed professionally. The criticism focused on the distinction between a celebrity contestant’s previous dance training and the specialized ballroom and Latin techniques taught on the program.

Shum’s Response

Speaking with People at Good Morning America on September 2, Shum rejected the assumption that experience in one dance style automatically transfers to every other style.

“I think everyone’s idea is like, ‘Oh, you dance, so you should be able to dance anything,’” Shum said. “And I mean, that’s just not true.”

“There are hundreds of styles, not dozens, hundreds all over the world,” he added.

Shum acknowledged that he has a background in dance but said Johnson has a stronger understanding of the craft relevant to the competition. He characterized the partnership as an opportunity to work toward Johnson’s level rather than as evidence that he already possesses the same expertise.

In a separate interview reported by The Express, Shum described ballroom and Latin dance as “a whole new vocabulary” for him. He said Johnson was teaching him the techniques required for the show and that he was approaching the competition as a challenge.

The distinction Shum described is central to the dispute: his previous work demonstrates performance and dance experience, but it does not establish that he has professional-level training in every discipline represented on Dancing With the Stars.

The Judge’s Defense of the Cast

Carrie Ann Inaba, one of the show’s judges, also addressed complaints about contestants with previous dance experience.

Inaba said that moving from jazz, hip-hop or other dance forms into ballroom can require major technical adjustments, particularly in relation to weight placement. “What’s difficult—and I don’t think people realize this—is when you go from being a jazz dancer or a hip-hop dancer or all the other forms of dancing to ballroom, the weight placement is so different,” Inaba said, according to Entertainment Weekly.

Inaba’s comments placed Shum’s defense within a broader discussion about how the show evaluates celebrities who arrive with different kinds of performance experience. The issue also involved Jenna Dewan and Julia Stiles, whose previous dance or performance backgrounds prompted similar questions from viewers.

Why the Debate Matters to the Competition

Dancing With the Stars pairs celebrities with professional dancers, who teach and perform choreographed routines across ballroom and Latin categories. The professional partners are responsible for choreography and instruction, while the celebrity contestants are judged on their execution, musicality, technique and performance during the season.

Because the celebrity lineup includes people with different levels and types of performance experience, comparisons between contestants are part of the program’s public discussion. However, the available reporting does not establish that Shum has an unfair competitive advantage, nor does it show that his prior dance work guarantees a particular result.

Shum’s own comments emphasized the limits of transferring experience between dance forms rather than denying his professional history. His position is that being comfortable with movement, choreography or performance does not mean being equally trained in ballroom and Latin technique.

The debate was still developing as the Season 35 premiere aired. Reports published after the premiere said the season had already reached its first elimination, although coverage also reported an ABC voting outage.

The Next Test

For Shum, the question is no longer only whether his casting is fair but how quickly he can adapt his existing performance skills to the show’s technical demands. His partnership with Johnson places that adaptation process at the center of his Season 35 storyline.

The evidence available from Shum, Inaba and ABC supports a narrower conclusion than either side of the online debate: Shum has significant experience as a performer and dancer, but the show presents ballroom and Latin dance as distinct technical disciplines that he must learn with Johnson’s instruction.

Yet filmmaker Joss Crowley, after years of persuading, finally managed to get Hynde to go along with the first authorized documentary on her seminal rock band, the Pretenders. There were ground rules. Hynde would only sit for one on-camera interview. She wanted few talking heads, hers included.

The result has just premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it’s for sale. “Pretenders,” a long overdue portrait, stands out in a world of glossy, heavily authorized bio docs, telling the band's story with Hynde's no-nonsense punk attitude.

When Hynde and Crowley met a reporter at a nearby hotel shortly after Sunday’s premiere, she seemed somewhat mystified that after granting interviews for the documentary, she had been coaxed into talking about herself yet again.

“You won’t go in my bathroom and see gold records on the wall,” she said. “I find it depressing looking back. I don’t revel in it at all.”

Hynde, 75, won’t bring herself to watch the documentary. But if the story must be told, she’d rather do the telling than someone else. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

AP: Were you at all tempted to watch the film, Chrissie?

HYNDE: No.

AP: But you felt that if a documentary was going to be made, you’d rather have some say in it.

HYNDE: That’s why there’s, hopefully, no gushing, no “women in rock,” no face-to-face interviews. Just talking about the band. I think I made it very clear, so hopefully that’s what happened. Is that what happened?

AP: That’s what happened. How reluctant were you to participate in the film?

HYNDE: We did one interview and I thought, OK. Then Joss wanted me to come back again. He wanted more about my past. And I called my manager Ian and I said, “I can’t talk to that guy anymore. I just talked to him for two hours. I’m not going to talk about Akron anymore.” Then he made a 10-minute trailer and it was just archive footage. I said, “Oh, OK. I’ll do it.” The thing in this game is you do something so you don’t have to talk about it anymore, and then you have to keep (expletive) talking about it. It’s unbelievable.

AP: Part of the film is about how, ultimately, you just wanted to be in a band. Your belief in rock ’n’ roll seems total.

HYNDE: Yeah, well I grew up in the ’60s. I was born in the ’50s, grew up in the ’60s, so I had the best music. I guess time has shown that I took it a little more seriously than everyone else. But that’s the past. I still love seeing a good band. But I’m not driven like I was in my 20s to see a band. Should I be? I’m not driven to go to a stadium and watch a heritage act for three hours.

AP: But did rock ’n’ roll mean something more to you than the music?

HYNDE: I thought bands were a kind of anti-establishment living outside the law. Now everyone says, “Oh, we love an outlaw.” You don’t (expletive) know that an outlaw is. You don’t know real outlaws. It’s not a glamorous life if you meet real outlaws. But I still think that rock ’n’ roll was anti-establishment. I say I don’t want to see a heritage act in a stadium because now it’s like everyone in the family can go. Nothing wrong with that. I get it. But it’s not why I got in the game. The thing in this rock ’n’ roll game is there’s no rules but there’s rules. That’s how I’ve always seen it.

AP: Like what?

HYNDE: Well, like the bass player should never smile. And don’t bring your girlfriend on the road. I hear all the time, “It must be great when you’re on the road. It must be like one big family.” And I’m like, we got in bands to get away from our families. Everyone thinks it’s something that it isn’t.

AP: Do you find that that anti-establishment attitude is fading? “Selling out” is no longer much of a concern. Everyone has to self-promote.

HYNDE: Absolutely. It’s changed so much. I have the experience now — we all do it — where I look at kids and they’re all on their phones. I just step back and I say, “It’s their world. Sorry, you’re inheriting this.” But it’s their world and they’ll have to figure it out. Just like it was our world and we had to figure it out. What was anti-establishment in the ’60s or ’70s, it doesn’t exist anymore. Everyone’s doing a Gucci ad. The idea of selling out doesn’t exist. Once “Revolution” went into a Nike ad, the floodgates opened.

AP: Joss, what’s your connection to the Pretenders music?

CROWLEY: I wanted to respect the music in the documentary. I wanted to treat it like the most special part of the film, but let it play. I didn’t want to try to break it down too much. I didn’t want to dissect it. I didn’t want to get in the studio with Chris Thomas and start pushing faders up and down.

HYNDE: What’s the series they have now? “Classic Albums.” You’re like: Ah, (expletive) it. You love a song and then you get some nerd in the studio going, “Listen to the background.” Well, you’ve ruined that one for me.

AP: Guitarist James Honeyman-Scott and bassist Pete Farndon both died due to drugs. In your 2015 book “Reckless: My Life as a Pretender,” you write that, “in the end, this story is a story of drug abuse.”

HYNDE: Yeah, unfortunately. In that whole generation, that whole genre of music that’s what it was about. With perspective you go, “Well that was a waste of time.” But things were born of it that otherwise wouldn’t have been. Those were those times. Everyone took drugs. Either you were a straight or a head. There wasn’t anything else. We’ve definitely gone backwards and that has more to do with the media and social media. There’s so much emphasis on gender. Why? That’s particularly what I wanted not to focus on. I didn’t want it to be a “women in rock” piece.

CROWLEY: Because you’re not sentimental, you don’t talk in cliches, it forced me to hopefully make a kind of anti-cliche, anti-gushing film about Chrissie and the band. There are so many docs out there that are the opposite of what I tried to make.

AP: Chrissie, in the film you say, “I like playing in a band. I just don’t like being observed. It’s a real problem.” Have you never had any use for celebrity?

HYNDE: I’ve met a lot of people in this game, and a lot of them, they believe the myth. And I never believed the myth. It’s rock ’n’ roll. It’s three chords. It’s a personality. It’s an expression. Yeah, great, it’s fun. But come on. In America, they think of “rock royalty.” Hey, I live in England. We never liked the royalty in England. Get over yourselves. It’s not that important. It’s a rock band.

The release places Martin’s established repertoire alongside performers from several generations and corners of contemporary Latin music.

Agencia EFE described “ReVivo” as a six-song EP, while Apple Music lists “ReVivo: Los Hits” as a 20-song release dated September 10. The available listings indicate that the six new or newly reworked collaborations form the core of “ReVivo,” while the 20-track version adds previously released collaborations and solo recordings from Martin’s catalogue.

Six Collaborations at the Center

The six-song project includes “A Medio Vivir” with Mexican singer Carín León. The song shares its title with Martin’s 1995 studio album, whose title track became one of the defining Spanish-language recordings of his early solo career.

Kany García joins Martin on “Asignatura Pendiente,” a song originally associated with his 2003 album “Almas del Silencio.” Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color reported that Ricardo Arjona wrote the original song before Martin released it in 2003.

“Vuelve” brings together Martin, Mexican group Los Ángeles Azules and Argentine singer TINI. The collaboration extends the project’s focus beyond a single musical generation by pairing Martin with performers whose work has developed in different phases of the Latin-pop and regional-music industries.

Brazilian singer Luan Santana appears with Martin on “Estranho,” a Portuguese-language version of the song “Te Extraño, Te Olvido, Te Amo.” The pairing reflects Martin’s continuing engagement with Brazil’s Portuguese-language music market and follows his release of “Estranho” as a single earlier in 2026.

“Tu Recuerdo” features Grupo Frontera, while Christian Nodal appears on “Fuego de Noche, Nieve de Día.” Both collaborations connect songs from Martin’s catalogue with artists strongly identified with newer waves of Mexican and Mexican-American popular music.

The Expanded “Los Hits” Edition

The 20-track “ReVivo: Los Hits” edition includes the six collaborations reported by EFE as the project’s central EP. It also includes Martin’s collaborations with Maluma on “Vente Pa’ Ca,” Yotuel on “La Mordidita,” Natalia Jiménez on “Lo Mejor de Mi Vida Eres Tú,” Wisin & Yandel on “Fiebre,” Carla Morrison on “Recuerdo,” Reik on “A Veces Bien Y A Veces Mal,” and Residente and Bad Bunny on “Cántalo.”

The expanded tracklist also contains solo recordings including “Disparo al Corazón,” “Tiburones,” “Otra Noche en L.A.,” “Adiós,” “Perdóname,” “Come with Me,” and “Más.” “Livin’ la Vida Loca,” one of Martin’s most internationally recognized songs, does not appear in the 20-track listing shown by iHeart.

Consequence characterized the longer release as a 20-track album combining new reinterpretations, recent collaborations and previously issued material. Apple Music separately identifies “ReVivo” as an EP while listing “ReVivo: Los Hits” among Martin’s latest releases.

A Catalogue Revisited Through Collaboration

The project’s structure makes collaboration its central organizing idea rather than treating Martin’s earlier recordings as closed historical artifacts. Apple’s editorial description says the project keeps Martin at the center of songs he originally created while allowing other artists to contribute their own interpretations.

That approach is visible in the range of participating artists, which includes performers associated with pop, música mexicana, cumbia, regional Mexican music and Portuguese-language Brazilian music. The collaborators include artists born in different decades and working in different markets, giving the release a deliberately cross-generational profile.

“ReVivo” arrives as Martin continues performing internationally in 2026. Setlist.fm records a Martin performance at Festival Cordillera in Bogotá on September 13 and a Lima concert on September 10 as part of his “Ricky Martin Live 2026” schedule.

The release also comes ahead of Martin’s announced appearance at the halftime show for the September 27, 2026, NFL game between the Dallas Cowboys and Baltimore Ravens at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracanã Stadium, where he is scheduled to perform with Brazilian DJ Pedro Sampaio.

For listeners, the result is both a concise six-song set and a broader 20-track survey of Martin’s catalogue and collaborations. The distinction between the EP and “Los Hits” edition should be kept in mind when describing the release, because the two listings contain different numbers of tracks.

Michele, who played ambitious singer Rachel Berry throughout the Fox musical dramedy, was asked whether she would return for a potential new installment during an interview with E! News.

“I love Glee. I will always love Glee,” Michele said, according to coverage of the interview.

She also expressed affection for Murphy and described the series as holding “a very special place” in her heart before saying she would follow him wherever he went.

Michele’s remarks do not amount to a formal casting announcement, and she did not confirm that she had signed on to any project.

Murphy’s reboot comments

The discussion began after Murphy said he was considering revisiting Glee, which ran for six seasons and concluded in 2015.

In comments reported by People and cited by Deadline, Murphy said the show had “come back around” because many younger viewers were now watching it.

“Maybe we should revisit that show,” Murphy said, according to Deadline’s account of his remarks.

Murphy also referred to the possibility of a “new incarnation” of the series, while describing his continuing nostalgia and affection for the program.

The producer did not specify whether a future project would be a conventional reboot, a continuation of the original story, or a spinoff involving new characters.

No production order, release date, network or streaming platform has been publicly announced for a new Glee project.

What Michele’s return could mean

Michele’s comments have renewed attention around the possibility of Rachel Berry appearing in a future version of Glee, but they stop short of confirming that the character would return.

Rachel was the central vocalist of the original New Directions club and one of the show’s principal characters, making Michele one of the performers most closely associated with the series.

The original ensemble also included Cory Monteith, Chris Colfer, Amber Riley, Kevin McHale, Jenna Ushkowitz, Dianna Agron, Naya Rivera, Jane Lynch and Matthew Morrison.

Because Murphy has not announced a format or creative plan, it remains unclear whether any new project would center on original characters, introduce a new cast, or combine both approaches.

Michele’s wording likewise leaves open whether she would return as Rachel, appear in another capacity, or simply support a project led by Murphy.

A series with a lasting cultural footprint

*Glee* premiered on Fox in 2009 and followed a high-school show choir at William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio.

The series combined musical performances with storylines involving friendship, romance, disability, race, religion, bullying and LGBTQ+ identities.

Its LGBTQ+ storylines included characters such as Kurt Hummel, played by Chris Colfer, and Santana Lopez, played by Naya Rivera.

The series also featured openly queer performers and characters and became part of broader conversations about LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream television.

Any new version would therefore arrive in a television environment substantially different from the one in which the original series premiered, although no creative details have been disclosed.

Murphy’s comments indicate that renewed audience interest is one factor behind his consideration of a return, but they do not establish that development has begun.

No confirmed reboot yet

For now, the confirmed development is limited to Murphy’s public willingness to revisit the property and Michele’s statement that she would be receptive to following his direction.

Neither statement confirms that Fox, Disney, a streaming service or another distributor has commissioned a new series.

The reports also contain no confirmed information about additional returning cast members, writers, directors, production dates or a premiere schedule.

Michele’s comments nonetheless provide the clearest indication so far that a major original cast member would not automatically reject the idea of returning.

Until Murphy or a distributor announces a formal project, the proposed reboot remains a possibility rather than a confirmed production.

The rapper addressed the decision in a statement posted to Instagram, writing that he would “speak from the heart and share the truth.” He said Sheeran and Sheeran’s team had decided to remove him from the tour.

Macklemore also said that Sheeran had told him Robert Kraft contacted the singer after the MetLife performances and said Macklemore would not be permitted to perform at Gillette Stadium, which is owned by Kraft’s Kraft Group.

According to Macklemore’s account, Kraft also contacted other stadium owners, who collectively told Sheeran that the tour would not be allowed to use their venues if Macklemore remained on the lineup.

Those allegations have been reported by multiple outlets, but the public reporting reviewed for this article does not independently establish the precise communications between Kraft, Sheeran and other venue owners.

Promoter Cites Venue Restrictions

Messina Touring Group, the promoter for the U.S. leg of Sheeran’s tour, confirmed that Macklemore would not perform on the remaining support dates.

In a statement provided to Rolling Stone, the promoter said venues on upcoming U.S. tour dates had informed it that they would not allow concerts featuring Macklemore in the lineup. The promoter said that permitting the rapper to remain could have resulted in cancellation of the tour and affected hundreds of thousands of fans.

The promoter’s statement did not identify the venues involved or say that Kraft personally directed the decision.

Forbes reported that Macklemore was removed after venues objected to his “Free Palestine” remarks at two MetLife Stadium shows earlier in September.

The decision changes the lineup for the remaining U.S. dates of Sheeran’s stadium tour, which had included Macklemore as an opening act.

What Happened at MetLife Stadium

Macklemore performed at MetLife Stadium on September 4 and September 5 while opening for Sheeran. During the shows, he voiced support for Palestinians and called for a “Free Palestine” before performing “Hind’s Hall,” his protest song addressing the war in Gaza.

At the second performance, Macklemore said that criticism of Israel and opposition to what he described as apartheid and genocide were not criticism of Jewish people. He said his message was for peace and for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect and equality.

The remarks prompted criticism from pro-Israel groups, including the Israeli-American Council. The organization launched a petition addressed to Sheeran and the tour leadership calling for Macklemore’s removal from future dates.

The petition also asked Sheeran and tour officials to clarify whether Macklemore’s political speech, visual material and performance of “Hind’s Hall” had been approved in advance.

Macklemore responded publicly on September 7 by sharing video of his speech on X and writing, “Wanting all humans to be treated equal should never be controversial.”

Competing Accounts of the Removal

Macklemore described the decision as the result of pressure placed on Sheeran by Kraft and other stadium owners. He said Sheeran was a longtime friend and that the singer had been presented with an ultimatum involving access to venues.

The tour promoter gave a narrower explanation, saying only that venues had notified it that they would not permit concerts with Macklemore on the bill.

WBUR reported that Kraft was expected to address the decision publicly on Monday. The available reporting does not establish whether Sheeran personally agreed with Macklemore’s political position or whether he made a separate public statement explaining the removal.

The dispute therefore involves two confirmed developments: Macklemore’s removal from the remaining support dates and the promoter’s statement that venues objected to his participation. Macklemore’s additional claims about Kraft’s role remain allegations attributed to the rapper unless independently confirmed.

Broader Significance

The episode places a prominent music tour at the center of a broader dispute over political expression at commercial entertainment events. Macklemore’s statements addressed the Israel-Gaza conflict, while critics argued that his remarks and performance brought political messaging into a concert setting.

Macklemore has previously used his public platform to address political and social issues, including through “Hind’s Hall.” The song’s title refers to Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall, which student protesters renamed Hind’s Hall in 2024 in honor of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old Palestinian girl whose death in Gaza drew international attention.

His removal illustrates the practical consequences that political statements can have for artists performing under contracts involving stadium operators, promoters and headline performers. The promoter said the decision was made after discussions with stakeholders to preserve the remaining tour dates.

As of Monday, Macklemore is no longer scheduled to appear on the remaining U.S. support dates of Sheeran’s Loop Tour. The precise role played by individual venue owners in that decision remains subject to further confirmation.

In the ad for the sports prediction market platform Novig, Sweeney appears with little or no clothing, covering parts of her body with strategically placed footballs and other sports apparel.

Many female athletes criticized the ad on social media and called it disrespectful to women.

“I can’t describe how infuriated I feel when I watch this,” four-time Olympic swimming gold medalist Ariarne Titmus wrote on Instagram. “How do we live in a world where monetizing a woman’s body and sexualizing women’s sport is still a thing?”

British sprinter Amy Hunt addressed the actor in a post-race interview with the BBC on Sunday after finishing fourth in the 200 meters at the Ultimate Championship in Budapest, Hungary.

“Sydney Sweeney, this is what women in sport look like,” she said, looking at the camera. “Muscles, hard work, sweat, blood, tears.”

Former U.S. gymnast Gracie Kramer called the ad infuriating.

“I’ve spent my entire life competing in a sport where female athletes have been oversexualized, reduced to our bodies, and forced to fight to be taken seriously for what we can actually do,” she said on Instagram.

Kramer posted stories featuring female athletes training with the caption: “What a woman in sports looks like.”

Sofie Fella, a Chinese-German rugby player, said female athletes can be role models for girls and women because they manage to “untangle” from society’s ideals of beauty and femininity.

“And that’s why that Sydney Sweeney ad is so disrespectful to every female athlete in the world,” she said in an Instagram post.

Novig didn’t immediately answer an email seeking comment. A publicist for Sweeney also didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In an apparent reference to the criticism, Sweeney over the weekend posted a series of covers from ESPN The Magazine’s “Body Issue,” an annual special edition that showed athletes posing nude or semi-nude in a celebration of the diversity of bodies.

Sweeney, a two-time Emmy nominee, starred in and produced last year’s “Christy,” a biopic of American professional boxer Christy Martin.

This is not the first time her brand partnerships have sparked debate; her 2025 American Eagle campaign, which played on the homophones “jeans” and “genes,” previously triggered widespread online discussion.

Wachowski, who co-directed The Matrix films with her sister, Lana Wachowski, made the remarks in an interview published by Variety on September 11, 2026. She was discussing the forthcoming HBO Harry Potter television series and the relationship between consumer spending on the franchise and Rowling’s personal political advocacy.

“She is funding trans genocide,” Wachowski said of Rowling, according to Variety. She continued: “J.K. Rowling funds trans genocide, full stop. So, if you support Harry Potter, you’re supporting trans genocide.”

Wachowski also said that money spent on Harry Potter products reaches Rowling and is then used to support what she characterized as anti-transgender legislation around the world. The Washington Times reported that Wachowski framed support for the new television adaptation as complicity in what she described as the persecution of transgender people.

Wachowski’s comments about Rowling and supporters

In the same interview, Wachowski described Rowling and technology entrepreneur Elon Musk as “literal Nazis,” according to reporting by Them. The comments were made in the context of Wachowski’s criticism of public figures whose statements or political activity she believes have harmed transgender people.

Wachowski is a transgender woman who publicly came out in 2016. Her sister, Lana Wachowski, is also transgender. The sisters are known principally for creating The Matrix franchise and co-creating the Netflix series Sense8.

The remarks have drawn attention because the planned Harry Potter television adaptation is expected to renew public debate over Rowling’s role in the franchise and her views on sex and gender. Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter novels and has continued to be publicly associated with positions opposing some transgender-rights campaigns and legal reforms.

Rowling representative issues rebuttal

Neil Blair, Rowling’s agent, responded in a statement provided to Entertainment Weekly. Blair began by defending freedom of expression while arguing that Rowling’s views should be represented accurately and fairly.

“To correct Lilly Wachowski,” Blair said, Rowling’s J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund supports women taking legal action in the United Kingdom to preserve their existing rights under the Equality Act 2010. He said those rights are “often overlooked or threatened.”

Blair further stated that Rowling’s fund “does not support legal actions aimed at harming transgender people or efforts to limit trans rights.” That statement presents Rowling’s charitable and legal-support activity as focused on women’s rights under existing UK law rather than on legislation intended to harm transgender people.

Blair did not dispute that Rowling supports legal actions concerning sex-based rights; instead, he disputed Wachowski’s characterization of that support and its alleged consequences for transgender people. The Washington Times similarly described the disagreement as a dispute over Rowling’s financial support for legal efforts involving sex-based rights.

Dispute over the Nazi comparison

Blair called Wachowski’s allegations “seriously defamatory” and said that references to the Nazis and the genocide they committed should not be presented as fact when, in his view, they are fabricated and unsupported by evidence.

The representative’s wording was a direct rejection of the allegation that Rowling’s actions amount to “trans genocide.” It was also a rejection of the comparison between Rowling and Nazi ideology reported in coverage of Wachowski’s interview.

Neither the Variety interview nor Blair’s response establishes an independent factual finding that Rowling is funding genocide. The phrase is Wachowski’s characterization of Rowling’s political activity, while Blair’s statement is Rowling’s representative’s denial of that characterization.

The available reporting also does not show that Wachowski’s comments have resulted in legal proceedings against her or that Blair’s statement constitutes a formal lawsuit or legal filing. Any potential legal consequences remain unreported in the sources reviewed.

Wider context

Rowling’s public conflict with transgender-rights advocates has continued for several years. In 2024, BBC News reported that Rowling challenged Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act through social-media posts about transgender people and argued that freedom of speech and belief was at stake.

In 2026, a sexual-violence support centre founded by Rowling demanded an apology from Amnesty International UK after the organisation described the centre as “anti-rights,” according to BBC News. The centre also threatened legal action, while Amnesty International UK referred itself to the charity regulator over the report. Those developments form part of the continuing public dispute over Rowling’s views and activism, but they do not independently substantiate Wachowski’s genocide allegation.

The immediate dispute now centers on whether support for Rowling’s work should be understood as support for her political and legal advocacy. Wachowski argues that financial support for Harry Potter products ultimately benefits Rowling and her causes, while Blair says that framing falsely equates support for women’s legal action with efforts to restrict transgender rights.