Connect with us

World

Kendrick Lamar’s Beef With Drake and J. Cole, Explained

Published

on

Kendrick Lamar’s Beef With Drake and J. Cole, Explained

Things weren’t always this tense between Kendrick Lamar and Drake. On March 25, the former shook the foundation with his uncredited verse on Metro Boomin and Future’s “Like That,” a cut included on the pair’s freshly released collaborative album “We Don’t Trust You.”

The internet immediately lit up: Lamar’s particularly fiery verse put his issues with other rappers in uncharacteristically plain terms, very clearly taking shots at Drake and J. Cole in response to their song “First Person Shooter,” included on last year’s “For All the Dogs.” On the track, Cole lumped Lamar with himself and Drake as the “big three”: “Love when they argue the hardest MC / Is it K. Dot? Is it Aubrey? Or me? / We the big three, like we started a league.”

In a tightly wound, entendre-replete, machine gun verse, Lamar fired back by refuting the designation and setting himself apart from his peers and former collaborators. “Yeah get up with me, fuck sneak dissing / ‘First Person Shooter,’ I hope they came with three switches,” he raps. “Motherfuck the big three, n—a, it’s just big me.” To add insult to injury, he referenced the contentious relationship between Michael Jackson and Prince, comparing himself to the latter and stating that his legacy will outlast their influence. “Your best work is a light pack / N—a, Prince outlived Mike Jack / N—a, bum, ‘fore all your dogs get buried / That’s a K with all these nines, he gon’ see ‘Pet Sematary.’”

It makes sense that Lamar would use his appearance on Metro’s new record as a platform to air his grievances — after all, Drake and Metro have recently had their own public reckoning. The two have worked together in the past — Metro helmed the majority of the tracks on Drake and Future’s 2015 album “What a Time to Be Alive” — but something shifted between the two in the years that followed.

Advertisement

Here’s where the speculation comes in. Some surmise that the lack of a promised sequel to “What a Time” led to bad blood; Drake instead released “Her Loss” in 2022, which did include a Metro production credit on “More M’s.” But others trace the first true indicator of tension to Metro’s song “Trance,” included on the producer’s 2022 album “Heroes & Villains.” Drake initially had a verse on the track, which features Travis Scott and Young Thug, but Metro removed it prior to album release. The version with Drake inevitably leaked; some think Drake himself released it as retaliation. Then, this past December, Metro tweeted and deleted that “‘Her Loss’ still keeps winning rap album of the year over [‘Heroes & Villains’]. Proof that award shows are just politics and not for me.” Drake went on a livestream soon after, shouting out the “tweet-and-deleters” and saying that “you guys make me sick to my stomach.” Metro unfollowed Drake on Instagram, and the beef simmered.

So it makes sense, then, that Lamar would take this opportunity with “Like That” as a podium for his own grievances with Drake and J. Cole. But it caught listeners off-guard that Lamar would so decisively lay out his issues with the pair. The three came up around the same time, and have consistently been considered foundational for that generation of MCs. They’ve all collaborated, and even went on tour together; Drake gave Lamar his own interlude on his 2011 album “Take Care,” and Cole and Lamar once teased a collaborative project in addition to releasing numerous collabs.

But the three have also long considered rap a competitive sport, and have been vying for the G.O.A.T. title for years. In 2013, Lamar gave a similarly show-stealing verse on Big Sean’s “Control,” also featuring Jay Electronica, where he ran through a laundry list of his peers’ names—Drake and J. Cole included—stating that “I got love for you all but I’m tryna murder you n—s” and asking “What is competition? I’m tryna raise the bar high.” In the years that followed, the subliminals flew, on songs like Lamar’s “King Kunta” and Drake’s “The Language” (hint: if you’re trying to find sneak disses in their discographies, there’s plenty to work with).

It was only a matter of time until their issues spilled into the open with such candor. So where does Future come into all of this? Drake and Future have been very frequent collaborators in the past. Beyond “What a Time,” the two have a huge pile of duets between them, so it came as a bit of a surprise that he’d co-sign Lamar’s verse by including it on “Like That.”

But once that track lit up the internet, fans started looking elsewhere on “We Don’t Trust You” for potential jabs at Drake. One person matched song titles as puns on Drake song titles. Some pointed to Future’s second verse on the album’s intro as a swipe: “You a n—a number one fan, dog / Sneak dissin’, I don’t understand, dog / Pillowtalkin’, actin’ like a fed, dog / I don’t need another fake friend, dog / Can’t be ’bout a ho, ’cause we sharin’, dog / In you feelings, n—a, why you playin’, dog.”

Advertisement

A bit of unpacking here. On Drake’s “What Would Pluto Do?,” included on “For All the Dogs,” he references Future’s nickname Pluto, stating, “Last time I saw her, she was fuckin’ with my n—a / So the question is, the question is, what would Pluto do? He’d f—k the ho, so I did it.” Not to mention that “in you feelings” could be a reference to Drake’s “In My Feelings.”

While it’s difficult to pinpoint the source of their issues, social media connected the dots to suggest that Drake and Future were beefing over a woman. One user on X (formerly Twitter) suggested that a song on “We Don’t Trust You” referenced the woman in question; Metro came in to shut down the theory. “Y’all n—s stop making stuff up for engagement and enjoy the music,” he wrote.

Regardless, Lamar’s verse on “Like That” has officially entered the pantheon of iconic diss tracks, and clearly set off a chain reaction that’s still going strong months later. Rap fans patiently waited for a response, and with the surprise release of his new album “Might Delete Later” on April 5, J. Cole was the first to fire back at Lamar on its closing song “7 Minute Drill.” On it, he dismissed much of Lamar’s catalog and claimed he “fell off like ‘The Simpsons.’”

“The rap beef ain’t realer than the shit I seen in Cumberland / He averagin’ one hard verse like every thirty months or somethin’,” he said, referring to the five-part “The Heart” series that Lamar has rolled out over the course of his career. “If he wasn’t dissin’, then we wouldn’t be discussin’ him / Lord, don’t make me have to smoke this n—a ’cause I fuck with him / But push come to shove, on this mic, I will humble him.”

Drake, meanwhile, has taken a harder approach. He first addressed Lamar’s verse during a brief diatribe during one of his shows. “A lot of people asking me how I’m feeling. The way I’m feeling is the same way I want you to walk out of here feeling tonight about your fucking self,” he told the crowd. “Because you know how I’m feeling? I got my head up high, my back straight, I’m 10 fucking toes down, and feeling like anywhere else I go, and I know no matter what, there’s not a n—a on this Earth that can ever fuck with me in my life.”

Advertisement

But then, Drake released his first diss track “Push Ups” after an early version of the track leaked to social media on April 13. A high-quality version of the song came later that day, and the rapper officially released it to streaming services on April 19. On the track, he came for Lamar, rapping, “How the fuck you big steppin’ with a size-seven men’s on?” referencing the title of Lamar’s 2022 album “Mr. Morale and the Big Steppers.”

Later on April 19, Drake released a follow-up diss entitled “Taylor Made Freestyle” to his social media profiles, featuring AI verses from Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg. On the song, he stated, “World is watching this chess game, but oh you out of moves Dot / You know that the OG never fucking doubted you / But right now it seem like you posted up without a clue / Or what the fuck you ’bout to do.” Soon after, Drake removed the song from social media after Shakur’s estate threatened to sue him.

Lamar took a minute to let the beef simmer, then fired back on “Euphoria,” which he officially dropped on April 30. “You not a rap artist, you a scam artist with the hopes of being accepted,” he rapped. “Tommy Hilfiger stood out, but Fubu had nеver been your collection / Know you a master manipulator, and habitual liar, too / But don’t tell no lie ’bout me, and I won’t tell truths ’bout you.”

Then, in a surprise move, Lamar hit back with a second diss track in a week with “6:16 in LA,” a play on Drake’s series of similarly titled songs. The tune, which he uploaded to Instagram in the early hours on May 3, came for Drake and his OVO crew and featured production from Jack Antonoff. The producer’s inclusion was considered a chess move from Lamar, whom Drake accused of keeping silent to avoid Taylor Swift’s new album from taking the spotlight. Antonoff produced on that album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” which shattered records in the wake of its release.

Just hours after “6:16 in LA” hit social media, Drake responded on Friday evening (May 3) with “Family Matters,” going after Lamar and flaming him for bringing up his son Adonis. Lamar fired back just moments after with “Meet the Grahams,” where he raps directly to Drake’s family members and suggests that he has a secret daughter. And as if that wasn’t enough, Lamar followed the next day with “Not Like Us,” which accused his foe of pursuing underage girls.

Advertisement

Will the saga continue? It’s tough to say. This has been going on for months, and Drake and Lamar aren’t slowing down the beef anytime soon. More to come, perhaps, as the tensions rise.

World

Horvath to Heidenreich on 4th-and-goal leads No. 22 Navy to a 17-16 win over Army

Published

on

Horvath to Heidenreich on 4th-and-goal leads No. 22 Navy to a 17-16 win over Army

BALTIMORE (AP) — Blake Horvath to Eli Heidenreich.

That’s the connection that led Navy to such a memorable season — and the two of them came through again on the biggest play of the biggest game.

Horvath threw an 8-yard touchdown pass to Heidenreich with 6:32 remaining — on fourth-and-goal — and No. 22 Navy rallied to beat Army 17-16 on Saturday. Heidenreich, the career and single-season leader in yards receiving for the Midshipmen, caught six of Horvath’s seven completions on the day.

“Who wouldn’t go to him?” Horvath said. “Talk about an all-time Navy legend. You’re going to be talking about Eli Heidenreich for years and years and years.”

Although it was clearly a passing situation, and Heidenreich was Navy’s top target, he was single covered over the middle.

Advertisement

“Tried to bring some pressure on them,” Army coach Jeff Monken said. “Good throw and good catch.”

With President Donald Trump in attendance, Navy (10-2) got its second straight victory over Army (6-6), and the Midshipmen won the Commander-In-Chief’s Trophy for a second straight season. The Black Knights have not beaten a Navy team that was ranked by the AP since 1955.

Horvath was fortunate to have the chance to throw that decisive touchdown pass. On second-and-goal from the 1, he lost the ball while attempting a tush push. Army linebacker Eric Ford had a chance to scoop it up, but Navy running back Alex Tecza lunged over to prevent that, and Heidenreich eventually fell on the ball back at the 8.

“That’s probably the last thing you want to see on the 1-yard line is you turn around and the ball is just bouncing behind you,” Heidenreich said. “I was blocking down. I thought he had pushed in, and kind of out of my peripheral I saw it going behind me.”

On the next play, Horvath was nearly sacked, but he was able to throw the ball toward Tecza as he went down. The ball fell incomplete instead of being caught around the 15, which was just as well for Navy because it made going for it on fourth down a more viable option.

Advertisement

“I kind of felt like we had to,” Navy coach Brian Newberry said. “The nature of what they do offensively, despite how well we played in the second half, you may not get the ball back.”

Even after Heidenreich’s touchdown and an Army punt, Navy still had to escape one more near-turnover. On third-and-3 from the Army 43, the ball popped loose on a run by Horvath, but he was able to catch it out of the air. It came loose again and the Black Knights recovered, but after a review, Horvath was ruled down before the second fumble — a yard short of the line to gain.

Tecza then ran for the first down that enabled Navy to kneel out the clock, and Horvath appeared to wave goodbye at the Army sideline. There was a bit of a ruckus near midfield after the final kneel-down before things eventually calmed down for the traditional singing of the alma maters.

“They want to talk all their crap during the game and act like they’re so tough,” Horvath said. “The excuse last year was that they played a conference championship game before us. This year, we’ll see what it is.”

The Black Knights were trying to turn the tables on Navy after a ranked Army team — which had just won the American Conference title — lost to the Midshipmen last year.

Advertisement

The teams traded touchdown drives to start the game, each lasting 13 plays, 75 yards and over seven minutes. Horvath had a 5-yard scoring run, and Army quarterback Cale Hellums answered with a 2-yarder. Army’s first drive didn’t end until 5 seconds into the second quarter.

Then it was a while before anyone reached the end zone again. With Army up 10-7 late in the second quarter, the ball slipped out of Horvath’s hand while he was looking to pass. Army recovered the fumble at its own 45 with 20 seconds to play and moved into range for a 45-yard field goal by Dawson Jones.

Navy’s defense stiffened in the second half, but the Midshipmen still flirted with disaster. Horvath threw an interception in the third quarter that was initially returned to the end zone — before a replay showed Army’s Justin Weaver had a knee down when he picked off the pass at the Navy 32. The Black Knights had to settle for three — Dawson connected on a career-long 48-yard kick.

Navy’s Wing-T offense has been explosive this season. The Midshipmen entered the day with an FBS-high 10 plays of at least 60 yards. Army mostly kept them contained, but Horvath slipped free for a 37-yard run that set up a third-quarter field goal that made it 16-10.

After Hellums’ underthrown pass was intercepted by Phillip Hamilton, giving Navy the ball at the 50 with 11:19 to play, Tecza’s 24-yard run made it first-and-goal from the 5.

Advertisement

Trump tossed the coin before the game at midfield, then returned at halftime to walk from the Navy sideline to the Army one.

One that got away

Army defensive lineman Jack Bousum, who is from Annapolis, had a big game against his hometown team. He finished with 1 1/2 sacks and a fumble recovery.

The takeaway

Army: The Black Knights were the better team in the first half Saturday but didn’t do much offensively after that.

“They beat blocks,” Monken said. “We didn’t sustain the blocks we needed to.”

Navy: Horvath made some big plays and some bad ones, and the Navy defense was stout in the second half. The Midshipmen finished tied for first in the AAC this year but missed out on the league title game because of tiebreakers. This victory matters more to them anyway.

Advertisement

Up next

Army: Faces UConn in the Fenway Bowl on Dec. 27.

Navy: Faces Cincinnati in the Liberty Bowl on Jan. 2.

___

This story has been corrected to show Army took over at the Navy 32 after Horvath’s interception.

___

Advertisement

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here and here (AP News mobile app). AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

Continue Reading

World

2 US Army soldiers, interpreter killed in Syria ambush attack, Trump warns of ‘very serious retaliation’

Published

on

2 US Army soldiers, interpreter killed in Syria ambush attack, Trump warns of ‘very serious retaliation’

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump warned Saturday that there will be “very serious retaliation” after a lone Islamic State gunman in Syria killed two U.S. Army soldiers and a U.S. interpreter in an ambush attack.

Advertisement

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced earlier that the soldiers and interpreter were targeted in the central Syrian town of Palmyra in an attack that left three others wounded. U.S. Central Command said the deaths and injuries were a “result of an ambush by a lone ISIS gunman in Syria.”

“We mourn the loss of three Great American Patriots in Syria, two soldiers, and one Civilian Interpreter. Likewise, we pray for the three injured soldiers who, it has just been confirmed, are doing well. This was an ISIS attack against the U.S., and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

“The President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is extremely angry and disturbed by this attack. There will be very serious retaliation,” he added.

SYRIANS MARK FIRST YEAR SINCE ASSAD’S FALL AS US SIGNALS NEW ERA IN RELATIONS

U.S. forces patrol in Syria’s northeastern city of Qamishli in the Hasakeh province, on Jan. 9, 2025.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In comments to reporters outside of the White House on Saturday, Trump also said, “This was an ISIS attack on us and Syria. And again, we mourn the loss and we pray for them and their parents and their loved ones.”

Parnell wrote on X that the attack happened as the soldiers “were conducting a key leader engagement.”

“Their mission was in support of ongoing counter-ISIS/counter-terrorism operations in the region,” he added, noting that “The soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin notification. “

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that, “The savage who perpetrated this attack was killed by partner forces.”

“Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you,” Hegseth also said in a post on X.

Advertisement

Parnell said the attack is currently under investigation. A Pentagon official told Fox News Digital that the attack unfolded in a place where the Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa does not have control.

President Donald Trump meets with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa at the White House on Nov. 10, 2025. A Pentagon official told Fox News Digital that the attack on the soldiers on Saturday, Dec. 13, 2025, unfolded in a place where the Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa does not have control. (Syrian Presidency/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“I’m praying for the brave U.S. soldiers and civilian who lost their lives, those who were injured in this attack, and the families who bear this profound loss,” Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll wrote on X. “The men and women who serve our country represent the very best of our nation. We mourn the passing of these heroes and honor their service and sacrifice.”

A senior U.S. official earlier confirmed to Fox News there were multiple injuries after American service members were ambushed in Syria.

“The United States, CIA and military forces are reportedly deeply involved in securing and stabilizing the situation in Syria,” Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, recently told Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

The injured in Saturday’s attack were taken by helicopters to the al-Tanf garrison, which is near the border with Iraq and Jordan, The Associated Press reported, citing Syrian state media.

ISRAELI OFFICIAL ISSUES STARK WARNING AFTER CHILLING SYRIAN MILITARY CHANTS RESURFACE

U.S. Army soldiers prepare to go out on patrol from a remote combat outpost on May 25, 2021, in northeastern Syria.  (John Moore/Getty Images)

There are currently around 900 U.S. troops in Syria.

The U.S. had eight bases in Syria to keep an eye on ISIS since the U.S. military went in to prevent the terrorist group from setting up a caliphate in 2014, although three of those bases have since been closed down or turned over to the Syrian Democratic Forces.

Advertisement

On Monday, tens of thousands of Syrians flooded the streets of Damascus to mark the first anniversary of the Assad regime’s collapse.

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

Those celebrations came a year after former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad fled the capital as rebel forces swept through the country in a lightning offensive that ended five decades of Assad family rule and opened a new chapter in Syrian history.

Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson, Ashley Oliver, Jennifer Griffin, Benjamin Weinthal and Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

EU dismisses Russia’s lawsuit against Euroclear as ‘speculative’

Published

on

EU dismisses Russia’s lawsuit against Euroclear as ‘speculative’

Published on

The European Commission has dismissed as “speculative” and groundless a lawsuit launched by the Russian Central Bank against Euroclear, the Brussels-based central securities depository that holds €185 billion in immobilised assets.

In a short statement published on Friday morning, the Russian Central Bank announced the start of legal proceedings for the “recovery of damages” and blamed Euroclear for preventing the release of the assets, which are subject to EU law.

The lawsuit was submitted to the Arbitration Court in Moscow.

Advertisement

The development comes with the EU still hammering out a plan to channel Russia’s sovereign assets into a zero-interest reparations loan to Ukraine, a process with Euroclear at its centre. EU leaders are meant to make a final decision when they meet on 18 December.

“Our proposal is legally robust and fully in line with EU and international law. The assets are not seized, and the principle of sovereign immunity is respected,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the European Commissioner for the Economy, said on Friday afternoon.

“We kind of expect that Russia will continue to launch speculative legal proceedings to prevent the EU from upholding international law and to pursue the legal obligation for Russia to compensate Ukraine for the damages it has caused.”

According to Dombrovskis, all European institutions that have Russian assets, from Euroclear to private banks, will be “fully protected” against Moscow’s retaliation. The EU has controlled €210 billion in assets of the Russian Central Bank since February 2022.

The sanctions regime already allows Euroclear to “offset” any potential loss, he added.

Advertisement

For example, if a Russian court orders the seizure of the €17 billion that Euroclear has on Russian soil, Euroclear will be allowed offset the loss by tapping into the €30 billion that its Russian counterpart, the National Settlement Depository, has stored within the EU.

Additionally, the reparations loan, if approved, will introduce a new mechanism to deal with state-to-state disputes. If Russia seizes the sovereign assets of Belgium in retaliation, Belgium will be allowed to “offset” the lossagainst the €210 billion, while Russia will not recover the amount it has seized when the assets are freed.

The Belgian factor

The legal safeguards are meant to allay the concerns of Belgium, which remains the chief opponent of the reparations loan. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has repeatedly warned of the risk a successful legal challenge could pose.

“We put forward a proposal. We are confident in its legality and its court-proof character,” a Commission spokesperson said.

Euroclear, which declined to comment, has previously criticised the reparations loan as “very fragile”, legally risky and overtly experimental.

Advertisement

The lawsuit comes a day after EU countries agreed to trigger an emergency clause to immobilise the Russian Central Bank assets for the foreseeable future.

Under the new law, the €210 billion will be released only when Russia’s actions “have objectively ceased to pose substantial risks” for the European economy and Moscow has paid reparations to Kyiv “without economic and financial consequences” for the bloc – a high bar that is unlikely to be cleared any time soon, if ever.

The indefinite immobilisation is meant to further placate Belgium and Euroclear in order to facilitate the approval of the reparations loan next week.

In a separate statement, the Russian Central Bank said it “reserves the right, without further notice, to apply all available remedies and protections if the proposed initiatives of the European Union are upheld or implemented”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending