News

A former cast member of Love and Hip Hop: Atlanta has died

According to Hot 97, Khadiyah Jaleela Lewis, also known as KD, died on May 30. She was 44 years old.

Lewis first appeared on the hit reality television show as a guest during its third season while dating Love and Hip Hop star and rapper Yung Joc. She later became a supporting cast member in season four.

What Khadiyah ‘KD’ Lewis’ family says about her death

“This has been an extremely emotionally devastating time,” KD’s brothers, Jamaal Lewis and Elijah Inegbedion Jay, told The Shade Room in an exclusive statement. “All prayers, condolences, and well wishes are sincerely appreciated.”

“At this time, we have decided to not discuss anything surrounding her death or why she passed away,” wrote the brothers in a social media post.

Beyond her work on Love and Hip Hop: Atlanta, KD also worked as a business and tax consultant, and during an iconic moment on the show, fans learned about her work as a realtor.

One Love and Hip Hop: Atlanta fan took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share condolences.

Rest in Peace to Khadiyah Lewis from Love and Hip Hop. Her brother confirmed she passed away 😔She gagged Karlie Redd on this episode. pic.twitter.com/MztvK4RYx4— Boochie is the Name (@stoppfeenin) June 5, 2025

“Rest in Peace to Khadiyah Lewis from Love and Hip Hop. Her brother confirmed she passed away,” wrote the X user with a clip from the scene in the show where she and Karlie Redd got into a tussle. “She gagged Karlie Red on this episode.”

Fans are invited to attend her memorial. 

In the post shared by Lewis’ brothers, they invited those impacted by her life to attend her funeral services.

“What we would like to do at this time is to offer the many people whose lives she touched an opportunity to celebrate her life through a zoom Memorial Service.”

The services are set to take place on June 14.

The sudden war of words between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk took several dramatic turns Thursday.

Musk has now accused Trump of appearing in the files of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while Trump has hinted that he may cancel billions of dollars in contracts Musk’s companies hold with the federal government.

Elon Musk dropped a bombshell Epstein allegation against Trump

“Time to drop the really big bomb,” tweeted Elon Musk in a Thursday afternoon post on X, the social media site he owns. “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk tweeted to Trump, for whom Musk worked until leaving his White House position last week.

Time to drop the really big bomb:@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.Have a nice day, DJT!— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025

The message, posted at 3:10 p.m. ET Thursday, indicated that information about Trump appears in the unreleased files of deceased millionaire Jeffrey Epstein, a former socialite and convicted sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 while in jail. Epstein’s death has since been the subject of conspiracy theories, including among many MAGA supporters. Trump supporters are also among those who have demanded the government release the so-called “Epstein files” that they believe detail who else may have been involved in the sex crimes for which Epstein was jailed. Trump is one of the many celebrities known to have been friends with Epstein, and Trump  supporters have expressed anger at delays in the release of information from the Epstein case.

It was all good just a week ago

Musk’s accusation is the latest in the breakdown of his relationship with Trump. The two appeared to be on friendly terms last week when Musk left his White House position to return to running his companies, which include X, SpaceX and Tesla. But over the past week, Musk has stepped up his criticism of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” arguing that the legislation will significantly add to the national deficit and undo the spending cuts that Musk pushed through via his DOGE agency.

The disagreement between Musk and Trump got increasingly heated Thursday. Trump publicly criticized Musk, saying that the Tesla owner supported the bill until he found out it would cut electric vehicle funding; Musk denied the allegation.

False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it! https://t.co/V4ztekqd4g— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025

Musk also claimed that “without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” and accused the president of “ingratitude.”

At around 2:37 p.m. Thursday afternoon, Trump escalated things further, posting on his Truth Social network, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

Shortly after this tweet threatening Musk’s government contracts, which have amounted to at least $38 billion over more than 20 years, according to a Washington Post report, Musk made his Epstein tweet.

As of late Thursday afternoon, Musk was still regularly tweeting about this situation. In one post, he responded “Yes” to a suggestion that Trump be impeached and replaced with Vice President JD Vance.

With such heated accusations and threats flying back and forth between Trump and Musk, it’s unlikely that their feud will end soon or that their once close working relationship will be restored.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court decided Thursday that the case of a straight white woman who sued for discrimination based on her sexual orientation can proceed. The ruling is likely to support other cases of ‘reverse discrimination’ filed by members of majority groups.

In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Marlean Ames, a straight white woman who claimed she was passed over for promotion and ultimately demoted because of her sexual orientation. Ames sued, claiming that she had suffered discrimination, but lost in the lower courts. The federal Sixth Circuit, in its ruling against Ames and others, has required members of majority groups to meet an additional burden of proof called “background circumstances” when making circumstantial claims of discrimination. The Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” requirement, which Ames’ lawyers argued violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers workplace discrimination. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, saying that “we conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.”

More ‘reverse discrimination’ cases may be on the way

Experts predict that the Supreme Court’s ruling will lead to additional members of majority groups suing for so-called “reverse discrimination.” This impact will likely be heightened by other recent changes, such as the 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in college admissions and the Trump administration’s policies against DEI and other diversity-related programs. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew this connection in a concurrent opinion that he authored, claiming that “a number of this nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.” Thomas also claimed that “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”

Ames’ case moves back to the lower courts

The Supreme Court’s decision does not answer the question of whether Ames faced discrimination. Ames began working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004. In 2019, she was passed over for a management position for which she applied, which was given to a lesbian woman instead. Ames was later demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames continues to claim that her orientation led to her being passed over and then given a lesser role. Her employers, however, say she was not promoted because they lacked confidence that she would perform well in the management position, adding that she was “abrasive” and interviewed poorly.

Ames’ case will return to the lower courts, but the Supreme Court ruling will make it relatively less difficult for her to make her case. It may also encourage a number of other lawsuits by members of majority groups, even as the federal government remains hostile toward policies and initiatives aimed at benefiting members of minority and marginalized groups in the country.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced a new travel ban, similar to the ones he implemented during his first term. Under the new policy, citizens of a dozen countries will be banned from traveling to the United States, while seven additional countries will face restrictions.

Trump travel ban mostly targets Black, Muslim countries

In a proclamation issued by the White House Wednesday, President Trump announced that he had decided to “fully restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 12 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.”

The announcement goes on to state that “People from seven countries will have partial restriction: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.”

Notably, the 12 countries facing total bans, 11 of them have populations that are overwhelmingly Black and/or Muslim. The lone exception is Burma, also known as Myanmar, a country in Southeast Asia with a Buddhist majority.

The country has long been ruled by a military dictatorship, which has brutally repressed various Muslim and ethnic minority groups in the country.  The seven countries facing restrictions are a mix of Black and Muslim-majority countries and nations ruled by socialist or communist parties.

Trump travel ban will likely stay in place despitethe hardships it will cause

The seemingly discriminatory nature of the current ban mirrors controversial aspects of the policy from Trump’s previous term; his initial travel ban was labeled a “Muslim ban” for targeting countries where Islam was the dominant religion.

Trump cites national security concerns for his decision to restrict or ban travel of these countries’ citizens to the United States. In a video announcing the ban, Trump cited a recent attack in which an Egyptian national is accused of firebombing and injuring over a dozen people attending a vigil for Israeli hostages. Egypt, whose President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has close ties with the administration and was once described by Trump as his “favorite dictator” – is not one of the countries covered by the new travel restrictions

“We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen… That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others.” –President Trump pic.twitter.com/ER7nGM4TO2— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 4, 2025

The new ban is set to take effect Monday morning. The short delay may have avoided the problems of the first Trump administration’s travel bans, which took effect immediately and left would-be travelers to the U.S. stranded at airports. This new travel ban will restrict or ban access to the United States for millions of people around the world, including potentially banning refugees fleeing crises like the oppression in Myanmar or the civil war in Sudan.

Trump had been expected to announce a new travel ban, as he issued an executive order on inauguration day, tasking several cabinet members to work out the details of such a policy. Despite the controversy and potentially negative impact surrounding these policies, the Supreme Court has previously affirmed Trump’s authority to implement his travel bans, meaning that the current one is likely to remain in effect for some time.