Trump has helped make his neighbours richer than ever. They aren't pleased
But the true economic – and cultural – impact of the second Trump administration here isn't in the dust of construction sites. It's the noisy influx of Republican insiders, favour-seekers and pols who have altered the delicate social ecosystem of one of the richest enclaves in the world, home to more than 50 billionaires.
The newcomers regard Trump as a living tourist attraction and Palm Beach, an 18-mile sliver of land off the east coast of South Florida, as his buzzy natural habitat.
Trump has played a key role in the stratospheric real estate transactions here, though indirectly. During his first term, he signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which sharply limited the amount of state and local tax that could be deducted from federal taxes. For high-net-worth individuals, moving to a state with no state income tax, like Florida, was suddenly an idea worth many millions of dollars.
'The ripple effect has kept prices soaring for years,' said Holly Meyer Lucas, a real estate agent in South Florida.
For decades, Palm Beach was a redoubt of old-money families, with names like Whitney and Harriman. A strain of country-club antisemitism had been embedded in Palm Beach for years, many residents say, and it surfaced, inevitably, in the country clubs. Only one, the Palm Beach Country Club, was dominated by Jews.
Loading
Enter Donald Trump. He'd bought Mar-a-Lago in 1985, and turned it into a membership club a decade later. He welcomed anyone who could pay the $US25,000 initiation fee.
'It became an overwhelmingly Jewish club,' said Laurence Leamer, author of Mar-a-Lago: Inside the Gates of Power at Donald Trump's Presidential Palace.
It was also, soon enough, the hoppingest spot on the island. At the time, Trump owned casinos and had pull with the best entertainers in the industry. Billy Joel performed. So did Tony Bennett, Celine Dion and Rod Stewart.
'And Trump was a wonderful host,' Leamer said. 'He would stand at the door, greet everyone. He didn't do this to change the world. He did it to make a buck. But who cares? The results were terrific.'
Mar-a-Lago has evolved. After 2016, and the start of Trump's first term, locals who had flocked to it for a bit of networking found it was soon overstuffed with people they didn't like. Getting a reservation for dinner became a chore. Many in the old guard quit, replaced by the new contingent, even after the initiation fee was doubled to $US200,000 in 2017.
Today, the initiation fee is $US1 million, and the Moorish mansion is busier than ever.
The MAGA crowd at Mar-a-Lago and around the island is something new, and as with everything that is new in a place that has a style of its own, not exactly welcome.
'It's like new convertibles, fake nails, fake boobs, fake hair, fake eyes and big jewellery,' said Celerie Kemble, an interior decorator who grew up in Palm Beach.
At dinners and galas at Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service agents tell guests to stay in their seats when the president walks in and please, ladies and gentlemen, do not take any photographs.
'I think this town is a little bit aghast at itself. But the fact is, everybody here is safe because of their money.'
Celerie Kemble, an interior decorator who grew up in Palm Beach.
This rarely works.
'It's like you're asking kids not to eat sugar, right?' said Andrés DePew, a 27-year-old entrepreneur who founded a chapter of the Conservative Political Action Conference in his native Colombia.
DePew has posted many images of his own from Mar-a-Lago, part of an Instagram feed crammed with parties and dinners with other yoletaung, photogenic conservatives. On one memorable night, he met Mike Tyson and Russell Brand ('Great guy') along with Michael Flynn, a former US national security adviser; Bo Loudon, an 18-year-old conservative influencer; and one of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
For revellers in search of more rarefied, less politicised air, there's the Carriage House. It's one of a relatively new style of private club catering to a younger audience seeking a bit of New York City's always-on energy. A membership reportedly costs $US400,000.
Put off, but staying put
Republicans outnumber Democrats in Palm Beach County 2-to-1, according to data from the Supervisor of Elections. If the resistance to the MAGA tide has a spiritual home here, it is Leta Austin Foster & Daughters, a twee little store that sells bedding, children's clothing, gifts and interior design services near Worth Avenue. In June 2020, the only person to show up at a Black Lives Matter protest in front of Town Hall was Foster, then 80. Many retailers boarded up their stores, braced for vandalism that never happened.
Foster's daughter India grew up on Palm Beach, and one recent afternoon she sat on a staircase in the store and mused about the changes she's seen over the years. On the plus side, the place has gotten younger. When she moved back in 2006, after living in San Francisco, she looked up some stats and found that less than 1 per cent of the island's population was under 35 years old.
'Here's a young person,' she said to a 20ish customer, and everyone else within earshot. 'This never happened before.'
But many of the members of Generation Z and plenty of millennials she meets grate on her. One guy told her that he is 'part of the new world order.' So as gorgeous as Palm Beach is, India Foster isn't sure she can handle the rightward tilt of the place for the rest of her life. (And at least for her business, the influx of young MAGA types has not helped the bottom line.)
Loading
Republicans outnumber Democrats in Palm Beach County 2-to-1. The MAGA day-trippers notwithstanding, Republicans here still tend to be the variety that gets their news from The Wall Street Journal, not Newsmax. Many are deeply put off by Trump. But they will benefit from much of the president's agenda, like tax cuts for the rich, and their beloved island will continue to prosper, whether they like him or not.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


West Australian
31 minutes ago
- West Australian
THE WASHINGTON POST: Trump vows swift action to overturn nationwide court injunctions blocking his policies
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post


Perth Now
33 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Trump hails Supreme Court ruling as go-ahead for his agenda
An emboldened Trump Administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the US President's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the US DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Mr Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Mr Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Mr Trump's second term - even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Mr Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Mr Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Mr Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organisations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Mr Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Mr Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realise they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Mr Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise sceptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realise,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Mr Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and - in my view - unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. © 2025 , The Washington Post

AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Buffett donates $9.1b in Berkshire shares to charities
Israeli strikes killed at least 72 people across Gaza overnight and into Saturday local time (Sunday AEST), health workers said, as ceasefire prospects were said to be improving after 21 months of war. Three children and their parents were killed in an Israeli strike on a tent camp in Muwasi near the southern city of Khan Younis. They were struck while sleeping, relatives said. 'What did these children do to them? What is their fault?' said the children's grandmother, Suad Abu Teima, as others knelt to kiss their bloodied faces and wept. Some placed red flowers into the body bags. Also among the dead were 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more in apartments, according to staff at Shifa Hospital. More than 20 bodies were taken to Nasser Hospital, according to health officials. A midday strike killed 11 people on a street in eastern Gaza City, and their bodies were taken to Al-Ahli Hospital. Another strike on a gathering in eastern Gaza City killed eight including five children, the hospital said. A strike on a gathering at the entrance to the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza killed two, according to Al-Awda Hospital. Hopes for a ceasefire agreement in the coming week US President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters on Friday, he said, 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer will arrive in Washington next week for talks on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Indirect talks between Israel and Hamas have been on again, off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the territory's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half believed to still be alive. They were among 251 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking the war. The war has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. It said the dead include 6089 killed since the end of the latest ceasefire.