Suddenly, there’s a “No City Slickers” rule in place for the NBA Finals game 5 … the San Antonio Spurs are yanking tickets away from Knicks fans hoping to watch their team win its first ‘chip in 53 years.
The message is loud and clear on the Ticketmaster page for Spurs tickets … anyone buying tickets for Saturday night’s crucial game will be blocked if ya ain’t from ’round these parts. The actual warning reads, “Sales to this event will be restricted to customers residing within a 150-mile radius of Frost Bank Center” … the Spurs home arena.
Even if you’re an out-of-towner who already has tickets, you’re likely to get screwed, too. The Ticketmaster warning adds, violators of the rule will have their tickets “canceled without notice” … but you will get a refund.
Clearly, the Spurs don’t want their turf taken over by loud and excited New York fans willing to fork out big money to witness the Jalen Brunson, O.G. Anunoby and the rest of the Knicks take home the team’s first NBA Championship title since 1973. The NYers are up 3-1 in the best-of-7 series, so they can wrap things up tomorrow night.
You can see why the Knicks faithful are scrambling for last minute plane tickets, hotels and game tix … which are going for at least $1500 in the nosebleeds, and up to $10k for anything on the floor. Knicks fans have reportedly already snatched up 50% of the game 5 seats.
Ticketmaster says it’s using customers’ credit card billing addresses to spot outsiders. It’s unclear how the Spurs would enforce this on the secondary market, where bummed out Spurs ticketholders might be looking to make some easy money.
One thing’s for sure … Knicks fans are gonna be pissed. We’ve reached out to the Spurs and the NBA, but no word back yet.
The Spurs’ efforts to block fans the way Victor Wembanyama blocks players’ shots comes on the heels of San Antonio losing game 4 in historic fashion. They were up by 29 points before the Knicks pulled off the greatest comeback in NBA Finals history, winning 107-106 … much to the joy of Taylor Swift, Timothee Chalamet, Mariska Hargitay and Spike Lee.

Talking about Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen‘s hair evolution is like unraveling a tangled web of aesthetics. Between bouts of boho waves and snarled ends, and periods of matted-down, muddy blond, the twin fashion designers — who rose to prominence playing Michelle in the popular sitcom, “Full House” — have tested the waters of almost every natural hair color and intentionally disheveled style out there, inciting trends without even trying.
In honor of their 40th birthday on Saturday, WWD is taking a look back at their most notable looks over the last two decades.
As pioneers of the “indie sleaze” movement, Ashley and Mary-Kate garnered a “messy girl” reputation early on. Not in the pejorative, party girl sense, but in a cool, chaotically chic way. The two were often seen with what appeared to be unwashed, exposed roots that fluttered into beach waves down their backs. In the early 2000s, especially, Ashley favored haphazard updos, with layers falling from the sides, as seen at the spring 2005 Marc Jacobs show in New York. Mary-Kate, on the other hand, let her side bangs do their thing, while the rest of her auburn mingled around her.
Celebrity stylist Mark Townsend has famously crafted the sisters’ hair aesthetics long before they founded The Row in 2006. In 2008, both Ashley and Mary-Kate opted for the same bleached-blond, mid-length look, styled in a ratty texture as if they forgot to comb their hair that morning. An example of this is their hair at the Chanel fall 2008 runway show in Paris, where Mary-Kate added volume by pulling half of her dyed ends behind a tweed headband.
By 2015, both sisters had subdued their texture, rocking depleted waves in place. They also had switched their platinum coloring to a melting pot of honey-blond, caramel and brunette tones, while keeping the same “no-sweat” presentation. The CFDA Fashion Awards that year saw Ashley and Mary-Kate take home the award for Womenswear Designer of the Year, further epitomizing their minimalist brand with relaxed hair.
Their penchant for straight, snarled hair continued well into the late 2010s, though the coloring didn’t stay the same. With Mary-Kate holding up the brunette side of the bargain, Ashley reverted to her blond era, covering her dark roots as best she could. At the same time, her inner bohemian broke through again at the 2018 Met Gala, celebrating “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination.” Here, she topped her ensemble with a silver pendant belt fastened around the back of her head.
In the last two years, the twins have inadvertently recharged the fandom around their messy aesthetic with what’s now been dubbed “the Olsen tuck.” The style, achieved by loosely trapping the hair under a high-neck top or jacket collar, may be going viral now, but the codesigners have been modeling the tuck since they shot to stardom. Images from 2004 show the sisters hiding their low ponytails under buttoned jackets and fur collars; the tops of their heads teased. Ashley even donned the undone style on the Met Gala red carpet in 2017, tucking her blond ends under a dull green collar.
Phoebe Philo, a known proponent of “the Olsen tuck,” famously brought the anti-glamour aesthetic to the high-fashion world when she took a bow after her fall 2011 collection for Céline with her hair pulled halfway out of her turtleneck. More recently, Madonna was spotted with half of her stark blond hair thrown under her leather jacket at the Saint Laurent spring 2026 show outside the Eiffel Tower.
See here for a glance at Ashley’s and Mary-Kate’s style through the years.

Emily Ratajkowski is opening up about resenting the label “divorced single mom” following her split from ex-husband Sebastian Bear-McClard.
In a vulnerable essay for The Cut published June 12, the 35-year-old model and actress chronicled her experiences grappling with being a single mother, reentering the dating scene and the inner turmoil that comes with it.
She briefly touched on how her marriage with Bear-McClard “collapsed” six months after she gave birth to her son Sly, 5, during a “time period that felt both instant and excruciatingly slow.” She described the shift into motherhood as a “violent transition into a new reality of screaming baby on my aching tit and ring on my swollen finger.”
Ratajkowski and her husband married in 2018 before separating in 2022. Their divorce was finalized in 2025. Following the split, she said she was forced to confront her longtime fear of being a single mother.
Upon meeting new men, she said she realized many were aroused by the fact she was a mother. “They were particularly attracted to the idea that being a parent meant self-sacrifice was a given in my life. Did they want me as their mommy? Maybe,” she wrote.
Emily Ratajkowski says she entered ‘villain’ era in dating scene
When putting herself out there on dates, Ratajkowski said she intentionally embodied the role of a villain when dating, explaining she saw herself as “a woman who needs nothing from men” and referenced comic book characters like Poison Ivy and Catwoman.
“I’d seen too much, discovered what many women do only when they get divorced in their mid-40s. I’d lived through the failure of a unit, yet I was barely into my 30s. This was my villain origin story,” she wrote. “I was an urban creature. Being a New Yorker made being a single mom feel sexier. Bohemian. Or at least that’s what I told myself.”
She then discussed a relationship with a man she described as an “elder millennial.” When he first told her he loved her, just three weeks into their relationship, she felt a “familiar anxiety in my chest.”
After politely asking whether they could remain nonexclusive, she said she watched him begin to realize she was the “dead-eyed supervillain I’d been playing all along.”
“Despite my performance as the supervillain, a character I’d believed made me impenetrable, I was just as misguided and vulnerable as I’d been in my 20s when I was playing the good girl,” she wrote. “I’d never been connected to my own desires. It was all ridiculous, a silly game of performances with no substance.”
Ratajkowski has long written essays as an outspoken advocate for women’s rights, including her 2021 essay collection “My Body,” which explored themes of female empowerment, owning one’s sexuality and the exploitative tilt of the entertainment and fashion industries.
Contributing: Anna Kaufman, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON (AP) — A key surveillance tool seen as vital in preventing terror attacks and catching foreign spies is set to expire Friday after congressional efforts to temporarily extend it failed in bipartisan fashion.
It’s a significant lapse for the program known as Section 702, and even as President Donald Trump nominates a new national intelligence director more palatable to both Republicans and Democrats than his initial pick, it’s unclear how soon lawmakers — set for recess — would be able to revive the spy program.
Still, there may not be an immediate drop-off given that a court order from March authorized these government surveillance powers to remain in effect for another year.
Section 702 allows for sweeping powers to sift through foreign communications
The provision is a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, and grants American spy agencies sweeping powers to collect and examine the communications of foreigners located outside the United States without first getting a warrant.
U.S. officials see the law as an invaluable national security tool that has helped disrupt potential acts of terrorism, yielded valuable insight into ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure and contributed to the killing of al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri in a 2022 drone strike.
The law was passed in 2008 as an effort to codify key aspects of a predecessor spy program created by President George W. Bush’s Republican administration.
Since then, officials across administrations of both major political parties have warned that without the law the government won’t be able to collect crucial intelligence overseas.
The program’s renewal historically has been contentious
The periodic need to reauthorize the law has prompted protracted debate in Congress well before this year, including discussion over whether additional guardrails are needed to protect the privacy of Americans and their personal data.
That’s because when the government eavesdrops on foreigners abroad, it also sweeps up the communications of American citizens and others in the U.S. who are in contact with those surveillance targets.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns over revelations that FBI analysts over the years have improperly queried the vast repository of intelligence collected through the program for information about Americans, including related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters and the racial justice protests of 2020, as well as about state and federal political figures.
Some of those advocates have said the government should be required to have a warrant before examining communications collected from Americans. U.S. officials have said that a warrant would be legally unnecessary and overly cumbersome and that corrective measures have been implemented to reduce the number of improper queries.
Complicating the debate is the unlikely political alliances it has produced, uniting a coalition of lawmakers skeptical of government surveillance that includes both privacy-minded liberal Democrats and Republicans who still regard the intelligence community with suspicion over the investigation of ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 Republican presidential campaign.
The holdup this time is tied to pushback over acting intelligence pick Bill Pulte
Democrats balked when Trump picked Bill Pulte to serve as acting national intelligence director and refused to support a FISA extension until the selection was withdrawn. Pulte, a Trump loyalist with no known national security experience, has set off alarms by using his perch as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to facilitate dubious mortgage fraud investigations of perceived Trump adversaries.
A House vote this week that would have temporarily extended the program collapsed, with 19 Republicans and nearly all Democrats rejecting the temporary measure, 198-218. A Senate effort to approve its own versions also failed.
After those votes, Trump announced he was tapping Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan who previously served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as his permanent pick for director of national intelligence, or DNI. The pick was warmly received on Capitol Hill, but it was not enough to break the impasse before Friday’s scheduled expiration.
Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he has “known and respected” Clayton for decades and that had he been tapped a week ago, “lots of pain might have been avoided.”
“His intelligence, temperament and deep commitment to public service will make him a terrific DNI,” Himes said.
The next steps for the spy powers provision
Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have warned the Trump administration to prepare “for a potential significant gap in foreign intelligence collection.”
The expiration is likely to be the first meaningful lapse of Section 702 since it was created more than 15 years ago. In 2024, the Senate barely missed its midnight deadline before voting to approve a bill that was then signed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, creating a brief lapse.
Despite this year’s lapse, there’s no expectation of any immediate drop-off in intelligence collection as the U.S. hosts a series of events this summer with potential national security concerns, including the World Cup and festivities surrounding the 250th birthday of the United States.
A March opinion from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court certified the program’s renewal for another year, meaning that Section 702’s authority is expected to remain intact for months.
Even so, it’s conceivable that without congressional reauthorization, communications companies could try to cease cooperating with the government and stop complying with orders that it assist in intelligence collection.
___
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Lisa Mascaro and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Blake Lively is reportedly aware that “everyone will notice” when she’s not at Taylor Swift’s wedding and has no plans to hide it.
The actress and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly plan to send a clear message by looking unbothered while Swift and Travis Kelce tie the knot. “The strategy is simple: be seen,” a source tells Rob Shuter’s Naughty But Nice Substack on June 11. “They don’t want anyone saying they’re hiding at home or avoiding the spotlight. They plan to be out, smiling, and carrying on with their lives.”
More from SheKnows
A Guide To Taylor Swift’s Rumored Bridesmaids
After staying out of the spotlight amid their legal battle with It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni, Reynolds and Lively have been seen on a series of public dates in recent weeks, including an outing to get frozen yogurt on June 5 and a PDA-filled date on June 10.
“They want to project confidence,” claimed an insider. “The message is: life goes on. They’re not going to sit behind closed doors while the world talks about Taylor’s wedding.”
This is allegedly all a warm-up for Swift’s wedding as they plan to “hold their heads high” when it becomes clear that they weren’t invited to the high-profile nuptials.
RELATED: Blake Lively Subtly Throws Shade at Ex-BFF Taylor Swift With Super-Rare Photos of Her ‘Loved Ones’
“They’re not looking to compete with the wedding, but they also don’t want to be portrayed as the couple that got left out and disappeared,” a source said.
Swift and Lively were once best friends, but things soured when Swift was subpoenaed as a witness in Baldoni and Lively’s legal feud with Baldoni’s team claiming Swift was used to pressure him to accept Lively’s changes to his script. The subpoena was eventually withdrawn by Baldoni’s legal team.
This allegedly caused a falling out between Swift and Lively, meaning the latter won’t be invited to see her friend tie the knot.
“Everyone will notice who’s missing,” said a source. “Blake knows that. That’s why she wants people to see she’s doing just fine. The last thing she wants is to look wounded or in hiding.”
In March, it was reported that Lively “is unlikely to receive an invite,” with a source telling the Daily Mail that they’re “still not as close as they once were.” However, the following month, insiders claimed Lively was still holding out hope for an invite.
“Blake is totally optimistic. She’s acting like the invite is already in the mail,” an insider told Naughty But Nice. “She keeps going back to the beginning. She was around when Taylor and Travis first got together. She feels like part of their story.”
Only time will tell if Lively and Reynolds make the cut!
RELATED: Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds Are in Another Multi-Million Dollar Legal Battle
Best of SheKnows
10 of Taylor Swift’s Romances That Have Never Been Confirmed or Denied
Is Emily Ratajkowski Dating Dua Lipa’s Ex?
25 Times Kate Middleton Perfectly Recreated Princess Diana’s Iconic Fashion