As South Korea's population falls, its military is shrinking rapidly. Is that a problem as North Korea ramps up its forces?New Foto - As South Korea's population falls, its military is shrinking rapidly. Is that a problem as North Korea ramps up its forces?

The writing has been on the wall for a long time:South Korea'sbirth rate has dropped throughout much of the past decade,spelling trouble for the militaryas regional threats and global conflicts simmer. Now, a new report has found that the number of South Korean troops declined by 20% in the past six years, in large part because of the dwindling pool of young men – reflecting the shrinking workforce and swelling elderly population in one of theworld's most rapidly aging countries. The Defense Ministry report attributed the drop to "complex factors" including population decline and fewer men wanting to become officers due to "soldier treatment." The report didn't elaborate on that treatment but studies and surveys have previously highlighted the military's notoriously harsh conditions. As of July, the military had 450,000 troops, it said – down from 563,000 in 2019. "If the number of standing army (members) continues to decline, there can be difficulties in securing elite manpower and limits in operating equipment," warned the report, shared last week by lawmaker Choo Mi-ae. The news comes at a bad time for South Korea, a key Western ally which hosts huge numbers of US troops and has a mutual defense treaty with Washington. Just across the border, neighboring North Korea has senttens of thousands of soldiersto fight for Russia along thefront lines with Ukraine– raising fears that Moscowmay share advanced military technologywith Pyongyang in exchange, violating international sanctions. Meanwhile, North Korea's ruling Kim family has continued blasting hostile rhetoric, threatening todestroy South Koreawith nuclear weapons if attacked and warning that Seoul remains"the enemy." However, experts say, that doesn't necessarily mean North Korea's military is better off. The North is facing its own population woes and birth rate decline – and its technology lags far behind the South, which is now hoping to plug the shortfall in military recruits through innovation. "South Korea is incomparably far ahead of North Korea in terms of conventional weapons," said Choi Byung-ook, a national security professor at Sangmyung University. "We have smaller troops now, but I like to say 'small but strong military,' that's what we need to become." On the surface, North Korea has a few advantages. It's one of the world's most heavily militarized nations, with up to 1.3 million armed forces personnel,accordingto the CIA World Factbook. That's nearly three times higher than South Korea's troop numbers. Those troops also serve in the military for far longer – an average of 10 years, which allows them to have higher "unit cohesion (and) knowledge of each other's capabilities," said Sydney Seiler, senior adviser to the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. By contrast, there's "really not much advanced skills that you can develop" within the year and a half that most South Korean conscripts serve, Seiler said. North Korea's fertility rate – defined as the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime – is also far higher, at 1.77 in 2025 compared to South Korea's rate of 0.75,UN datashows. That data also suggests the North has been having more babies per year than the South since 2018, said Jooyung Lee, senior economist at the Bank of Korea Economic Research Institute. But the full picture is more complicated, experts told CNN. For one, South Korea has a reserve force of about 3.1 million men. While their training may be basic, it would give them the numbers needed for potential warfare – and that's not including the 28,500 US troops stationed in the country. Pyongyang is also facing its own population problems, with its fertility rate dipping in the last few years after the pandemic. The nation's authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un, pointed to the problem at a national conference of mothers in 2023, urging them to "give birth to many children" as a patriotic duty. That could bode ill for a highly isolated nation with an economy that relies on labor-intensive industries like agriculture and mining, said Lee. It's hard to tell how much this has impacted the North Korean military so far. But the fact that Pyongyang has sent tens of thousands of troops to fight for Russia suggests Kim "doesn't feel concerned about not having enough soldiers on board to do the task of defending the homeland," Seiler said. Their military has also enlisted more women to fill whatever gaps do exist. This trend began near the turn of the century after a previous dip in fertility, Lee said, with the proportion of female recruits now reaching as high as 20% by some estimates. Many are younger women serving in the military's communications, administrative and anti-aircraft artillery sectors, said Lee, who has interviewed many North Korean refugees who fled the country. Meanwhile, middle-aged and older women have been mobilized to fill gaps in other civilian sectors. By contrast, women are not conscripted in South Korea – a controversial point that has stoked resentment among some young Korean men who argue their mandatory service puts them at a disadvantage in their studies, careers and personal lives. As of 2023, volunteer females accounted for only 3.6% of the entire military, according to the Defense Ministry. Some experts have suggested that conscripting more women could solve South Korea's problem, which the Defense Ministry has not ruled out. But Choi, the national security professor, argued the country needs to move away from the idea of increasing its manpower – and instead focus on advancing its technology and making the troops elite. "I don't personally agree with opinions that we must have a large number of troops because North Korea does," he said. "The size of our troops has decreased and there are not many options to increase it … I think we need to take this crisis as an opportunity as South Korea is in the route of becoming a science technology powerhouse." On thebattlefields of Europe, Ukraine has shown firsthand how an out-manned and out-gunned military can still hold back and inflict painful losses on a much larger opponent by embracingnew and affordable technology. Tools like drones and cyber-warfare could help decrease South Korea's reliance on infantry and artillery, Seiler said. AI-assisted and autonomous systems could further boost a shrinking military, said Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. Choi pointed out that South Korea spends far more on defense than the North, and conducts many military drills including with allies like the US – making it better equipped in overall combat readiness. However, Seiler warned, at the end of the day "you still need people. There's no robots or automation that can replace a trained soldier, airman, marine." Easley agreed, saying South Korea's military would still face shortages in manpower in the event of war. And a broader challenge remains: how do authorities change cultural attitudes toward the military within South Korea? While people can volunteer to become professional cadres who serve longer terms and train with more advanced weapons, the number of applicants has dropped steadily over the years. High-profile cases of hazing, bullying and harassment within the South Korean military may have contributed to negative perceptions of the force. In recent years, the government has loosened restrictions on conscripts – including allowing them to use cell phones at certain times of the day – and offered a longer civilian service alternative to conscription. But that's not enough, said Choi. "We need to improve military welfare and fighting spirits as a whole," he said – adding that supporting the current size of the military will become even harder in the coming decades as the population declines further. "By 2040s, even maintaining 350,000 troops will be difficult, and that is why we need to establish an optimized manpower structure system … as soon as possible." This piece has been updated. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

As South Korea’s population falls, its military is shrinking rapidly. Is that a problem as North Korea ramps up its forces?

As South Korea's population falls, its military is shrinking rapidly. Is that a problem as North Korea ramps up its forces? The writing ...
Australian regulator sues Google over anti-competitive Search dealsNew Foto - Australian regulator sues Google over anti-competitive Search deals

(Reuters) -Australia's competition regulator said on Monday it has begun proceedings against Alphabet's Google over its past deals with telecom operators Telstra and Optus for the pre-installation of Google Search on Android mobile phones. Google has cooperated with the regulator, admitted liability and agreed to jointly submit to the Federal Court that it should pay a total penalty of A$55 million ($35.8 million), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said. ($1 = A$1.5349) (Reporting by Himanshi Akhand in Bengaluru; Editing by Sumana Nandy)

Australian regulator sues Google over anti-competitive Search deals

Australian regulator sues Google over anti-competitive Search deals (Reuters) -Australia's competition regulator said on Monday it has b...
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming monthsNew Foto - How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months

The Supreme Court'slandmark opinion on same-sex marriageisn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President DonaldTrump's effort to consolidate powerto a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are "outdated," "poorly reasoned" or "egregiously wrong." While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couplesaccess to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on averagethan earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably onabortionbut alsoaffirmative actionandgovernment regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on aRoosevelt-era precedentthat protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have onlyexpedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, frombeing fired by the presidentwithout cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree "that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse," said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. "For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court," Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. "Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law." Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high courthas already agreed to hearan appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could "blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates." In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an "aberration" that was "plainly wrong the day it was decided." If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, "it should overrule that outdated decision." Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have "harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere," such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended toshoot down campaign finance rulesas violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Courtappeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a "mistake" that "must be corrected." "If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it," Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University,wrote recentlythat there are "multiple flaws" with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, awedding cake bakeror awebsite developer– likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. "They are not exercising their own rights," he wrote, "but the powers of the state." Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers onLouisiana's fraught congressional districts mapand whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described "non-Black voters," it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The courtheard oral argumentsin the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June ofholding the casefor more arguments. Earlier this month, the courtordered more briefingon the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision inThornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, thecourt ordered officials in Alabamato redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. "Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there," said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging overredistrictingand the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a1950 Supreme Court decisionthat severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose "incident to service." The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. "This court should overrule Feres," Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative,wrote earlier this yearin a similar case the court declined to hear. "It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars." Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the "sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers" adopted by the Feres decision "is at odds" with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has "been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court." Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-oldSupreme Court precedentthat barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religionhave shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe "as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent," the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. "Santa Fe," they said, "was dubious from the outset." It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high courtreinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to "a brief, quiet, personal religious observance." Kennedysubmitted a briefin the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, "has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker." For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months

How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months The Supreme Court'slandmark opinion on same-sex m...
Kate Middleton and Prince William's Planned Move from Adelaide Cottage Causes 2 Families to Vacate Their HomesNew Foto - Kate Middleton and Prince William's Planned Move from Adelaide Cottage Causes 2 Families to Vacate Their Homes

Mark Cuthbert/UK Press via Getty Two families living in cottages near Forest Lodge were asked to vacate ahead of Kate Middleton and Prince William's planned move to the residence later this year There have been no eviction notices, and the tenants have since moved to similar or better housing within the Great Park The royal family previously moved to Adelaide Cottage on the Windsor royal estate in 2022 Two families living nearKate MiddletonandPrince William's soon-to-be residence were asked to vacate their homes ahead of the royal family's move. Kate and William, both 43, and their three children —Prince George,Princess CharlotteandPrince Louis— moved toAdelaide Cottageon the Windsor royal estate three years ago. Now, the family ispreparing to relocate to Forest Lodge later this year— and two nearby households have since departed in preparation, PEOPLE can confirm. The families were asked to leave cottages located near the eight-bedroom Windsor Great Park property earlier this summer, according to a new report from theDaily Mail. The cottages were previously converted from stables on the property and rented out by the Crown Estate, per the outlet. PEOPLE understands that there have been no eviction notices, and the tenants have since moved to similar or better housing within the Great Park, with everyone remaining in Crown Estate properties. English Heritage/Heritage Images/Getty The tenants "were not expecting it," a source told theDaily Mail. "Those houses are very close to the lodge, so they're not going to want any Tom, Dick or Harry living in those houses if there are going to be royals there." The outlet reported that new shrubs and privacy screens have been added at Forest Lodge in anticipation of the Prince and Princess of Wales' move. Forest Lodge is also undergoing some minor renovations ahead of the family's move, which Kate and William are paying for themselves. (Prince William receives around$30 million a yearfrom the Duchy of Cornwall Estate.) "The Wales family will move house later this year," a spokesperson at Kensington Palace previously confirmed to PEOPLE. The royal family will likely remain in Forest Lodge even when William becomes King. Can't get enough of PEOPLE's Royals coverage?Sign up for our free Royals newsletterto get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more! The move comes after the family's relocation to Adelaide Cottage in 2022. At the time, their three kids started at the co-ed prep school Lambrook, in nearby Ascot. Shutterstock Ahead of the move, it was revealed that the royal family's Norfolk home "is their happy place." "The reality is they are quite confined in what they can do in London," a friend toldThe Sunday Timesin 2022. "The kids can't go into the park and kick a football with friends. Their plan is to be there for the next 10 to 15 years and then move to Anmer, which is so special to them," they added to the outlet. Read the original article onPeople

Kate Middleton and Prince William’s Planned Move from Adelaide Cottage Causes 2 Families to Vacate Their Homes

Kate Middleton and Prince William's Planned Move from Adelaide Cottage Causes 2 Families to Vacate Their Homes Mark Cuthbert/UK Press vi...
Sarah Jessica Parker Says 'I Don't Care' That People Hate-Watch 'And Just Like That': 'It Has Been So Enormously Successful'New Foto - Sarah Jessica Parker Says 'I Don't Care' That People Hate-Watch 'And Just Like That': 'It Has Been So Enormously Successful'

Sarah Jessica Parker, who has played Carrie Bradshaw in the "Sex and the City" franchise for the past twenty-seven years, has responded to viewers who love to hate-watch the series' latest reboot, "And Just Like That." After theseries' finaleon Aug. 14, Carrie told theNew York Timesthat she doesn't pay the haters much thought. "I don't think I have the constitution to have spent a lot of time thinking about that," she said. "We always worked incredibly hard to tell stories that were interesting or real. I guess I don't really care. And the reason I don't care is because it has been so enormously successful, and the connections it has made with audiences have been very meaningful." More from Variety Sarah Jessica Parker Posts Emotional Goodbye to Carrie Bradshaw as 'Sex and the City' Franchise Ends After 27 Years; Kristin Davis Says 'I'm Profoundly Sad' 'And Just Like That' Writers on Carrie's Heartbreak and the 'Untenable Situation' With Aidan Sarah Jessica Parker Still Wants 'Hocus Pocus 3' and Says 'We've Been Having Some Conversations' After Bette Midler Told Disney to Hurry Up and Finish the Script Created by Darren Starr, "Sex and the City" debuted in 1998 on HBO and became a trailblazing phenomenon. Starring Parker alongside Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon as a quartet of gossipy New York City friends, the show garnered over fifty Primetime Emmy Nominations across its six seasons. It also spawned two feature films and a CW prequel series based on Parker's character before "And Just Like That" reunited the original cast (sans Cattrall) in 2023. "And Just Like That" became HBO Max's most-watched series debut upon release; however, it met ambivalent critical responses and subsequent seasons saw diminished viewership. Despite the original series' popularity, audiences scrutinized the reboot for retreading tired, outdated themes while making hollow attempts at updated cultural relevance. Some viewers even took to hate-watching the show, tuning in every week just to gawk at the latest episodes' cringeworthy moments. Just two weeks ahead of the Season 3 finale, HBO announced that the series would wrap and not return for a fourth season. The finale, "Party of One," sees Parker's Carrie exit the show as a single and independent woman. Despite much of Carrie's arc following her complicated relationships, break-ups and affairs, she ends up "on her own." The controversial sendoff met ire from some fans, who saw it as unsatisfying or unbefitting of Carrie's journey. Parker, however, feels good about the ending. When the Times asked her if she liked the decision to end with Carrie on her own, she responded, "Absolutely," and "I feel good about her. I think she's set up pretty well." Regarding the haters, Carrie conceded toPeoplethat "I think you're going to perhaps read things or hear things that don't always feel great." She added, "When you're part of a community, people are going to have a lot of feelings. And it doesn't mean that a feeling can't change, it's a reaction. We want very much for people to have all those feelings, and it's not for us to police or try to correct them." All episodes of "Sex and the City" and "And Just Like That" are available to stream on HBO Max. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Disney+ in August 2025 What's Coming to Netflix in August 2025 Sign up forVariety's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us onFacebook,Twitter, andInstagram.

Sarah Jessica Parker Says ‘I Don’t Care’ That People Hate-Watch ‘And Just Like That’: ‘It Has Been So Enormously Successful’

Sarah Jessica Parker Says 'I Don't Care' That People Hate-Watch 'And Just Like That': 'It Has Been So Enormously Suc...
All the Easter Eggs Taylor Swift Dropped About Doing the Super Bowl Halftime ShowNew Foto - All the Easter Eggs Taylor Swift Dropped About Doing the Super Bowl Halftime Show

THE RUNDOWN Taylor Swift seemingly dropped some Easter eggs on Travis Kelce's podcast. Fans believe she's hinting at a Super Bowl Halftime Show. Her album,The Life of a Showgirl, drops in October. Fans have been clamoring for Taylor Swift to perform at the Super Bowl for ages, but rumors 2026 might finally be the year started swirling after the Eras Tour star appeared on boyfriend Travis Kelce'sNew Heightspodcastthis week. Swifties know that the singer loves to hide "Easter eggs" hinting at her next move in all sorts of places—in her music videos, on her website, during live performances, and now, perhaps, when talking to Travis and his brother, Jason Kelce. To begin with, Swift openly referred to the Super Bowl Halftime Show, saying she has watched every single one, which means the topic is on her mind. But the other hints were not quite so obvious. A big one is that Swift joked that she thinks about sourdough "60% of the time." The San Francisco 49ers are hosting the 60th Super Bowl at Levi's Stadium in 2026, and who is their mascot? Sourdough Sam. Both the number and mention of bread types was abig flagto Swift's fans. Speaking of numbers, Swift mentioned the number 47 during the episode, specifically thanking Jason for his intro and screaming for "47 seconds." Levi's Stadium was Swift's 47th stop on her Eras Tour, leading some listeners to think she would be returning soon. And Swift has talked about 13 being her favorite number in the past, four plus seven is 13, and 2026 will be Travis's 13th NFL season. It all adds up! Finally, Swift has said before that she would not perform a halftime show at the Super Bowl before she owned or rerecorded all of her masters. The star finallybought the original mastersback this year after rerecording several of her iconic albums already. And her newest album,The Life of a Showgirl, is coming out in October, making a February Super Bowl show a perfect moment of public triumph. You Might Also Like The 15 Best Organic And Clean Shampoos For Any And All Hair Types 100 Gifts That Are $50 Or Under (And Look Way More Expensive Than They Actually Are)

All the Easter Eggs Taylor Swift Dropped About Doing the Super Bowl Halftime Show

All the Easter Eggs Taylor Swift Dropped About Doing the Super Bowl Halftime Show THE RUNDOWN Taylor Swift seemingly dropped some Easter egg...

 

LEX MAG © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com