Appearance comes after the controversial musician’s Brighton concert was cancelled following pressure from campaign groups

Fly half George Ford becomes the eighth Englishman to reach a century of caps as Steve Borthwick’s side take on the Pumas

President Donald Trump has defended his use of the term "shylock" at a rally this week, saying he was unaware it is considered antisemitic by some people. 

Trump used the term in his speech in Iowa on Thursday, shortly after his signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act was passed by Congress earlier in the day.

Shylock is the name of the villainous Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare’s "The Merchant of Venice," who demands a pound of flesh from a debtor. 

TRUMP ADMIN CRACKS DOWN ON ANTISEMITISM AS DOJ OFFICIAL EXPOSES 'VIOLENT RHETORIC' OF RADICAL PROTESTERS

Over time, the name came to be used more broadly to refer to a loan shark or greedy moneylender. Today, it can be considered an antisemitic slur, particularly when used in reference to Jewish people. 

"No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing some from, in some cases, a fine banker and in some cases, shylocks and bad people," Trump said, while referring to the bill’s elimination of estate taxes and borrowing burdens.

The term did not provoke any reaction from the crowd, but his remark quickly blew up online, and he later defended using it when a reporter said it is widely considered an antiemetic phrase.

"No I’ve never heard it that way," Trump responded. "To me, a shylock is somebody that’s a moneylender at high rates. I’ve never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I’ve never heard that."

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which works to combat antisemitism, said the term evokes "a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous."

SUSPECT CHARGED WITH MURDERING ISRAELI EMBASSY STAFF COULD FACE DEATH PENALTY

"President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible," the ADL wrote in a statement Friday. "It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States."

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D- N.Y., who is Jewish, agreed and ripped Trump for using the term. 

"The term ‘Shylock’ is one of the most recognizable antisemitic slurs in the English language," Nadler wrote on X. "It’s a centuries-old trope that has fueled discrimination, hatred and violence against Jews for generations. I condemn Donald Trump’s dangerous use of this blatantly antisemitic slur and his long history of trafficking in antisemitic tropes."

Nadler went on to say that Trump has exploited the rise of antisemitism to suppress free speech and that he isn’t serious about tackling the problem.

Conservative political commentator John Podhoretz, who is also Jewish, shot back at Nadler.

"I condemn your endorsement of an anti-Semitic mayoral candidate which you did because you are a pusillanimous coward," Podhoretz wrote, in reference to Nadler endorsing Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor. "At best Trump said Shylock the same week he destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. What have you ever done for the Jews, Jerry?"

Trump has made tackling antisemitism — particularly on college campuses and through immigration enforcement — a top priority in his campaign. He signed an executive order in January mandating that all federal agencies identify and apply tools to address antisemitic harassment and violence in higher education. His administration has also launched investigations into universities including Harvard, Columbia, and UC Berkeley over allegations of antisemitism and has threatened to pull federal funding if they fail to act.

His daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism in 2009 and is married to Jared Kushner, who is also Jewish.

Democrat Joe Biden, while vice president, said in 2014 that he had made a "poor choice" of words a day after he used the term in remarks to a legal aid group.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

LeBron James' future is speculated to be in limbo, so when he was training at another team's facility, it raised some eyebrows.

James exercised his player option for the 2025-26 season, and with it has some rumors of retirement at the end of the season, or even a potential trade incoming.

In the midst of the conversation, it turned out that James wound up training at the practice facility of his former Cleveland Cavaliers.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

James took a photo with Denver Jones, who signed to the team's summer league roster, at the facility, and it prompted plenty reaction.

But James said it was a total nothingburger, saying he's practiced there "every summer since it was built."

"I live here still and train every summer. Got damn yall bored man! Go get a plate of food somewhere and enjoy the 4th of July!"

EX-NBA PLAYER BEN MCLEMORE FOUND GUILTY OF RAPE AFTER 11-DAY OREGON TRIAL

James, who is from nearby Akron, was drafted first overall to the Cavs in 2003, and played there until 2010 when he spent his next four seasons with the Miami Heat. James then returned to Cleveland in 2014 before heading to Los Angeles prior to the 2018-19 season to play for the Lakers, where he's played ever since.

James has since opened his "I Promise" school in Akron, and his entertainment company, "SpringHill Entertainment," is named after the housing complex where he was raised.

With the player option, James is set to enter his 23rd NBA season, which will be a new record.

In 2016, James helped the Cavs to the city's first professional sports championship in 52 years by leading the 3-1 comeback against the 73-9 Golden State Warriors.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

• I was accepted into the University of Sydney's creative writing graduate program, and I was excited.
• But then I realized how AI is ruining the media landscape and the book industry.
• I decided not to enroll in the graduate program because I didn't see a future.

In early January 2024, I received a dream acceptance letter from the prestigious University of Sydney's creative writing graduate program. It wasn't just some program; it was validation.

Ever since I can remember, I have spent countless hours sitting in my room, writing stories. I was sure I'd write a bestseller someday. Although my parents didn't see writing as a career back then, I was determined to beat the odds and prove them wrong. Getting into the University of Sydney was the first step in that success.

But after my acceptance letter arrived, I realized the world was moving in a different direction. My sense of wonder and writing chops stood no chance against artificial intelligence. I talked myself out of the career path as it no longer seemed lucrative.

I couldn't ignore the changes AI is causing

I love language more than gardeners love dirt. I grew up reading Francine Pascal's "Sweet Valley Twin" series and Danielle Steel's escapades. I once refused to leave my room for days because my most beloved character in a book died, but since ChatGPT and other AI tools arrived, something in my creative radar has shifted.

In late 2023, I began noticing changes in the media landscape. Publications were laying off most of their writers, and friends in the industry lost out on great gigs and started competing with AI-generated writing.

As for the book industry, I realized AI will not spend years crafting a thrilling romance novel; it will instead churn out a thousand ebooks a month. For the commercial side of the industry, that will always be enough.

Meanwhile, MFA programs, like the one I was admitted to at the University of Sydney, still teach that the literary market is untouched. I've been struggling to believe that.

I wanted to ask my admissions officer: Are you preparing for the world we are entering?

I decided not to accept the graduate program's offer

Since I received my admission, I have been fighting a constant battle between staying true to what I believe and keeping up with new technology. In the back-and-forth, it feels like I'm losing my passion. Even though I tried to rationalize that a creative program isn't only about the job prospects, that it's about art, refinement, and bringing people together through written art, everything else around us is pointing to a devastating end.

I pictured myself two years later, with my degree in hand, querying agents while thousands of AI-written books filled bookstores. I imagined spending time writing amazing essays that editors would run through AI filters before deciding whether they wanted to assign cheaper versions of the story. The thought of being obsolete scared me stiff.

So, I made the heart-wrenching decision to walk away from the MFA.

Many people told me I was being overly dramatic because AI could never replace real writing and humans will always crave authentic stories, but I thought they were underestimating how quickly the market is shifting.

I also started thinking about what my master's program would do for me. Would I be proud of the credentials? Or would I feel depleted after a $50,000 investment for two years of study?

I'm finding my own way into the future

Since I turned down the program, I've been experimenting with different storytelling projects. While I've been freelancing full-time, I've also joined writing communities that focus on authentic stories.

There are days when I wonder what my classes would have been like, and it makes me sad that I'll never experience them. Many people are still pursuing MFAs, and it's still worth it.

But I know now that I don't plan to abandon writing; I'll just have to reinvent it.