World
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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
Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology
World
UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”
“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)
“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.
Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.
“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.
“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”
Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.
Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”
When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”
“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.
The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)
MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST
In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.
“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.
When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”
“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.
“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”
Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)
UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT
While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.
This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.
Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.
Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”
Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.
World
Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?
A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.
Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.
She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.
The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.
Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.
How the process works
In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.
On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.
These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.
Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.
Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.
The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition
Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.
According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.
Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.
Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.
He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.
Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT