Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

• For the first time, Joe Jonas has posted a photo with his girlfriend.
• According to photos taken without their knowledge, the couple has been dating for a while now.
• Who is this new love interest?
• Joe Jonas went through a divorce in 2024.
• He is the father of two young daughters.

Singer Joe Jonas seems to have finally shared his first couple photo. On his Instagram page, the star posted a series of photos summarizing recent moments in his life. Among them is a photo with his girlfriend, officially confirming their relationship.

The black-and-white photo appears to have been taken in a photo booth and consists of three vertical images. The focus is mainly on the middle one, where the couple can be seen snuggled up together.

The couple had already been spotted together in recent months, but this is the very first time Jonas has personally posted a photo with his significant other.

Who is she?

Last March, TMZ snapped a photo of the two lovebirds kissing at the Miami airport. A few months before that photo, on January 7, People magazine confirmed their relationship. A source close to them reportedly stated that they had “started getting to know each other at the end of last summer.”

She is indeed model Tatiana Gabriela.

According to her portfolio at Killer Management, Gabriela is originally from Puerto Rico and now lives in New York. After studying film, she turned to modeling, working with brands such as Diane Von Furstenberg, For Love & Lemons, and Dolce Vita.

She also appeared in one of rapper Bad Bunny’s music videos, released in January 2025.

Despite some hints, neither of them has really spoken publicly about their romantic relationship yet.

View this post on Instagram

A High-Profile Divorce for Joe Jonas

It’s worth noting that Joe Jonas went through a divorce in 2024. After a long-term relationship with actress Sophie Turner, the couple decided to end their relationship. After five years of marriage, four of which they spent as a couple, they decided to part ways.

Their union produced two children, Willa and Delphine (ages 4 and 2).

It took a full year to settle the terms of the divorce. Far from always seeing eye to eye, the former lovers locked horns in a legal battle that seemed never-ending. The main point of contention was primarily over shared custody of their two daughters.

A battle that was finally settled in court.

Pierre Poilievre has had a rough year. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.

In April 2025, Pierre Poilievre’s Federal Conservatives held a massive 20-point lead over the helmless Liberals after Justin Trudeau stepped aside amid a tenure marred by political infighting. It seemed as though the April 2025 election would be a slam-dunk for the Conservatives. Pierre Poilievre was at the height of his popularity to start 2025, and with Trudeau’s popularity numbers in the toilet, it was Poilievre’s race to lose.

Lose he did, failing to garner the support of Canadians in the months leading up to the election. Poilievre’s style of ‘mini-Trump politics’ had created unrest in the country, and Canada was swinging towards the right with confidence, right up until Donald Trump threatened to invade the country. Poilievre, who had long been using the comparisons between him and Trump to his advantage, was now faced with a country that unanimously hated the American president. Mini-Trump politics weren’t going to work for Poilievre, not after Trump had threatened the country.

While Poilievre went into a tailspin, the Liberals finally put together a seemingly confident campaign. Led by Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and England, as well as former UN special envoy on climate action and finance. Carney made waves with his first round of speeches, coming down hard on Donald Trump and assuring Canadians that he sees Trump as a malicious force in need of being mitigated. This is where Poilievre’s failures began. He didn’t come out against Trump, and didn’t show Canadians that he would be willing to fight for the country. Poilievre’s seriously lacklustre resume in Parliament also became a central topic. Investigations showed how Poilievre voted against union workers more than 500 separate times in his 20-year career. What’s more, is that in 20 years, Poilievre has only successfully had one bill passed into law, a shocking lack of production for a career politician.  

All of Poilievre’s missteps culminated in him losing his seat in the riding of Carleton, Ontario. The riding had never swung Liberal before 2025, and Poilievre had controlled the riding for the entirety of its electoral history. Pierre Poilievre’s constituents in Carleton were done with the Conservative leader, and after the election was confirmed on April 28, he was left without a seat, and with a party in freefall, though he would win a safe conservative seat in a byelection in August 2025.

Since Carney’s election, he has been playing a game coined by the CPC. He eliminated the carbon tax, passed strict laws on refugees and immigration, and made it clear his focus was economic, not socially driven like a Liberal leader may be expected to be. His actions have resulted in CPC voters and politicians slowly but surely switching sides, with Carney now owning a majority government after four CPC MPs crossed the floor to join his party. With the Liberals now enjoying a majority government, another failure has been added to Poilievre’s list.

Poll shows growing distrust, but not yet a disaster

A poll released by the Angus Reid Institute on April 20, 2026, showed the growing unrest among CPC voters, with faith in Poilievre’s leadership slowly sinking. The poll surveyed 1,646 Canadians, including 590 who voted Conservative in last year’s election. Among CPC voters polled, 57 per cent claimed Poilievre should stay on as leader into the next election, down from 68 per cent last August. An 11 per cent dip in just 12 months is significant, with only 75 per cent of CPC voters claiming to have a favourable view of Poilievre, and 20 per cent claiming to have a very unfavourable opinion on the leader. Both of those numbers are the worst of his career, with 75 per cent being his lowest approval rating, and 20 per cent being his largest disapproval rating.

The rest of the poll is not favourable to Poilievre. According to the Angus Reid Institute, a whopping 30 per cent of CPC voters want Poilievre replaced, a number high enough to raise serious questions in the caucus. With Conservative MPs abandoning ship while citing disagreement with leadership, it seems as though Poilievre is tanking his party. In 2024, Pierre Poilievre was one of the most popular Conservative leaders of all time. Now, just two years later, nearly a third of his voters want him gone, and his MPs have left, giving Mark Carney the majority that the CPC worked so hard to avoid. In addition to his voters feeling disenfranchised by his decisions, Canadians overall are seemingly done with Canada’s ‘mini-Trump’, with Poilievre owning an impressive 60 per cent unfavourable rating from all Canadians polled.

With Poilievre’s future in Parliament seemingly on shaky ground, the CPC leader is going to have to commit to yet another rebrand, especially if he hopes to regain the support of female voters, whom a meagre 28 per cent showed favourable views of in December 2025, before Poilievre’s fall from grace.

The Conservative leader has some work to do in the coming months if he wants to secure his legacy in Canadian politics.

A Republican-led House Oversight Committee has launched a federal investigation into what it describes as a troubling series of disappearances and suspicious deaths involving at least 10 U.S. scientists connected to highly sensitive research fields. The announcement has drawn immediate attention in Washington, with lawmakers raising concerns about potential national security implications tied to the cases. House Oversight Chair James Comer framed the situation in stark terms, calling the incidents «a national security threat» and telling Fox News, «It’s very unlikely that this is a coincidence». He added, «Congress is very concerned about this. Our committee is making this one of our priorities now because we view this as a national security threat.»

The investigation comes amid growing scrutiny following several recent high-profile cases that have circulated widely online and within policy circles. Among them is the February disappearance of retired Air Force Major General William Neil McCasland, who vanished under unusual circumstances from his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. According to his wife, McCasland disappeared within a narrow window of approximately 90 minutes after leaving his residence on February 27. He reportedly left behind all personal belongings, including his phone and prescription glasses, raising immediate questions about the nature of his disappearance and prompting an ongoing search effort by local authorities.

«It’s very unlikely that this is a coincidence.»

-House Oversight Chair, James Comer

McCasland’s case has drawn particular attention due to his background in advanced military research and his connection to discussions surrounding unidentified aerial phenomena. A former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, he was involved in some of the Pentagon’s most advanced aerospace programs. His appearance in a documentary produced by Tom DeLonge, focusing on UFO-related topics, contributed to the case gaining traction online. The combination of his professional history and the unexplained nature of his disappearance has placed his case at the center of speculation now being reviewed by federal investigators.

Other cases cited as part of the broader pattern include the killing of Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a physicist and fusion scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who led the Plasma Science and Fusion Center. Loureiro was fatally shot near his home in the Boston area in 2025, in an incident reportedly linked to a gunman associated with a shooting connected to Brown University’s campus. In California, astrophysicist Carl Grillmair, known for his work with NASA and research into planetary systems and water detection beyond Earth, was also fatally shot at his home outside Los Angeles in February at the age of 67. Both cases remain part of ongoing investigations by local and federal authorities.

«Congress is very concerned about this. Our committee is making this one of our priorities now because we view this as a national security threat.»

-House Oversight Chair, James Comer

The inquiry also includes the death of former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer Matthew James Sullivan, who died by suicide in 2024 before he was scheduled to testify in a federal whistleblower case related to unidentified aerial phenomena. His death, while officially ruled a suicide, has been cited by some lawmakers and observers as part of a broader pattern involving individuals connected to classified or sensitive research areas. Officials have not publicly confirmed any direct links between these cases, but the Oversight Committee has indicated that it intends to review each incident in detail as part of its inquiry.

While federal authorities have not established a confirmed connection between the cases, the decision to open a congressional investigation reflects increasing concern among lawmakers about whether the incidents may point to a larger issue. The Oversight Committee has not yet released a timeline for its findings, but members have indicated that additional cases may be reviewed as the investigation expands. For now, the combination of unexplained disappearances, violent deaths and connections to advanced research fields has raised questions that lawmakers say warrant closer scrutiny at the national level.

Former Fox News prime-time host Tucker Carlson, once one of Donald Trump’s most influential media allies, is now publicly breaking with the president in a reversal that has shaken parts of the conservative media landscape. Carlson, who spent years amplifying Trump’s political messaging and casting doubt on the 2020 election during his nightly broadcasts, said in a recent podcast that he now regrets his role in shaping public opinion. Speaking in a personal conversation, he acknowledged that his past influence had consequences that continue to weigh on him, describing a sense of responsibility for what followed and admitting his actions would stay with him long-term.

The shift comes after growing tensions between Carlson and Trump, particularly following Trump’s decisions regarding the war with Iran, which Carlson openly criticized. During his podcast, Carlson described those actions as «vile on every level», marking one of his strongest public condemnations of Trump’s leadership. The remarks signaled a clear break from years of alignment, during which Carlson had been seen as a key figure in promoting Trump’s worldview to a large television audience. The criticism also placed him at odds with other figures within the MAGA movement who have continued to support the president’s foreign policy decisions.

«Well, I changed my mind. Oh, this is bad.»

-Former Fox New Host, Tucker Carlson

Trump responded forcefully to Carlson’s comments in a post on Truth Social, targeting not only Carlson but several former allies who have distanced themselves from him in recent months. «Hand Flailing Fools like Tucker Carlson, who couldn’t even finish College, he was a broken man when he got fired from Fox, and he’s never been the same — Perhaps he should see a good psychiatrist!» Trump wrote, grouping Carlson with other conservative personalities including Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The response reflected an escalating pattern in which Trump has publicly attacked former supporters who challenge his decisions or messaging.

Carlson’s most direct admission came during a podcast conversation with his brother, where he addressed his past role in supporting Trump and influencing voters. «You know, we’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be.» he said. He followed with a rare apology directed at his audience, stating, «And I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional, that’s all I’ll say.» The comments marked a significant departure from Carlson’s previous tone, as he acknowledged both the scale of his platform and the potential impact of his messaging during key political moments.

He went further by placing himself among those responsible for Trump’s continued political power, framing it as a collective outcome rather than an isolated mistake. «In very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now.» Carlson said. «We’re implicated in this for sure.» he added, speaking directly to his brother. Carlson also referenced his direct involvement in Trump’s rise, saying, «You and I and everyone else who supported him – you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him.» The remarks pointed to a deeper reflection on the role of media figures and political allies in shaping electoral outcomes.

«You know, we’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be.»

-Former Fox New Host, Tucker Carlson

Carlson concluded his remarks by making clear that his position had fundamentally changed, drawing a line between his past support and his current stance. «Well, I changed my mind. Oh, this is bad.» he said, before adding a definitive break: «I’m out,» The statement underscored a broader shift in his public posture, as he moves away from Trump after years of close alignment. The fallout between the two men, once central figures in the same political ecosystem, now highlights growing fractures within conservative media and the broader MAGA movement as debates over foreign policy, leadership and responsibility continue to unfold.