Why are Donald Trump's new fragrances so expensive? Perfume expert reveals if the scents are REALLY worth it
On Monday, Trump unveiled a new fragrance called VICTORY 45-47, offering an option for men and women both encased in an elaborate gold Trump statue.
Trump, 79, announced the fragrances on his Truth Social platform and said, 'The Victory 45-47 scents ― one for men, one for women ― sell for $249 per 100ml bottle, with a $50 discount per bottle for those who purchase two or more.'
The product description calls the limited-edition, numbered rose gold statue perfume 'a stunning new women's fragrance inspired by President Trump's historic win' that's 'perfect for the Trump fan and collector.'
'With every spray, Victory 47 captures confidence, beauty, and unstoppable determination,' the description promises, calling it 'a sophisticated, subtly feminine scent that's your go-to signature for any occasion,' without providing any scent notes.
To find out if the fragrances are worth the high price, FEMAIL consulted a fragrance expert and a PR pro.
Much like the perfume option, the men's fragrance is just as vague. It's described as blending 'rich, masculine notes with a refined, lasting finish,' with no insight into what it actually smells like.
The product breakdown boasts: 'For men who lead with strength, confidence, and purpose — this is more than a cologne, it's a celebration of resilience and success.'
Mark Crames, CEO and chief perfumer at Demeter Fragrance, told DailyMail.com that while 'there are certainly $200 fragrances out there, they tend to be associated with niche or historically top fragrance houses who use fine ingredients and know how to use them,' and 'this looks like a cheap private label from overseas.'
Crames said he 'would assume it's a very non-offensive typical lower end designer fragrance' based on the limited description.
'Some higher priced use precious ingredients that justify their price and are sold in very limited distribution at exceedingly higher prices. This is not that,' Crames explained.
'Most commercial designer fragrances are driven by packaging and marketing, not scent. In that sense, the Trump fragrances fit right in. What it actually smells like has little do do with its allure,' Crames continued. Many perfumes cost upwards of $200, with some going for thousands of dollars.
'There is nothing here to distinguish the fragrance in an olfactory sense - it's about owning a piece of the Trump empire. This is very much like buying a Gucci fragrance for $75 because the $3,000 leather pants are out of reach,' Crames added. Trump has previously offered pricier products, like his $100,000 signed gold watches.
This isn't the first time the politician has offered MAGA-inspired fragrances to his fans. Last year, Trump sold a $199 Fight, Fight, Fight set, that was named after what he said during his assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Public relations professional Barry Schwartz told DailyMail.com, 'I'm not a fragrance expert, but do have considerable expertise in ethics, and this latest Trump gambit doesn't pass the smell test.'
Schwartz, based in New York, believes 'it's just another example of selling the presidency.'
Trump is promoting the fragrances and would probably be receiving a large licensing fee.
However, a note on the website states: 'Trump Fragrances are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, the Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
23 minutes ago
- NBC News
Tariffs and weaker beer demand are weighing on Modelo owner Constellation Brands
Constellation Brands on Tuesday reported quarterly earnings and revenue that missed analysts' estimates as beer demand slid and tariffs on aluminum weighed on its profitability. Still, the brewer reiterated its forecast for fiscal 2026, showing confidence that it can hit its financial targets despite the weaker-than-expected quarterly performance and higher duties. Shares of the company fell less than 1% in extended trading on Tuesday evening but rose 3% during morning trading on Wednesday after the company's conference call. The stock has shed more than 20% of its value this year, fueled by concerns about how the higher duties imposed by President Donald Trump would affect demand for its beer. Here's what the company reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: Earnings per share: $3.22 adjusted vs. $3.31 expected Revenue: $2.52 billion vs. $2.55 billion expected The report, which covers the three months ended May 31, includes the start of Trump's tariffs on canned beer imports in early April. He also hiked trade duties on aluminum to 25% in mid-March and to 50% in early June. Both imported beer and aluminum are crucial to Constellation's beer business, which accounts for roughly 80% of the company's overall revenue. Constellation's beer portfolio only includes Mexican imports, like Corona, Pacifico and Modelo Especial, which overtook Bud Light as the top-selling beer brand in the U.S. two years ago. Constellation reported fiscal first-quarter net income of $516.1 million, or $2.90 per share, down from $877 million, or $4.78 per share, a year earlier. Constellation's operating margin fell 150 basis points, or 1.5%, in the quarter, in part driven by higher aluminum costs. Excluding items, the brewer earned $3.22 per share. Net sales dropped 5.8% to $2.52 billion, fueled by weaker demand for its beer and the company's divestiture of Svedka vodka. Constellation is still facing softer consumer demand, CEO Bill Newlands said in a statement. He attributed the weaker sales to 'non-structural socioeconomic factors.' Constellation's beer business saw shipment volumes fall 3.3%, caused by weaker consumer demand. Last quarter, Newlands said Hispanic consumers were buying less of the company's beer because of fears over Trump's immigration policy. Roughly half of Constellation's beer sales come from Hispanic consumers, according to the company. But on Wednesday, Newlands demurred when asked about Hispanic consumer sentiment, saying that all shoppers are concerned about higher prices. 'When you see a fair amount of change, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers are concerned about inflation and about cost structure,' Newlands said. He added that consumers aren't going out to eat as much and hosting fewer social occasions, which means they are drinking less beer. Still, he maintained that consumer interest in drinking beer hasn't waned; while shoppers' overall spending on beer has fallen, their relative spend on beer compared with their total grocery bill has held steady. For fiscal 2026, Constellation continues to expect comparable earnings per share of $12.60 to $12.90. The company is projecting that organic net sales will range from declining 2% to rising 1%.
NBC News
24 minutes ago
- NBC News
Jan. 6 defendant sentenced to life in prison for plotting to kill FBI special agents who investigated him
WASHINGTON — A Jan. 6 defendant who plotted to murder FBI special agents who investigated him over his actions at the Capitol was sentenced to life in prison on Wednesday. Edward Kelley was convicted in November of conspiracy to murder employees of the United States; solicitation to commit a crime of violence; and influencing or retaliating against federal officials by threat. President Donald Trump pardoned Kelley, alongside roughly 1,500 other Jan. 6 defendants, in January. Kelley's team argued that Trump's pardon should apply to his conduct in the murder plot. While the Justice Department had argued that the pardons should apply to separate gun cases against other Jan. 6 defendants, they said the pardon did not apply to Kelley's conduct. A federal judge ruled that Trump's pardon did not apply to the murder plot. Federal prosecutors sought life in prison for Kelley, calling him 'remorseless" and writing that he had "shown neither a capacity nor desire" to rehabilitate. "On the contrary, Kelley not only believes the actions for which he was convicted were justified but that his duty as a self-styled 'patriot' compelled him to target East Tennessee law enforcement for assassination,' federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo. Kelley, prosecutors wrote, "committed crimes that are serious, violent, and all designed to achieve the same end: the murder of federal, state, and local law enforcement." Kelley "formed a self-styled militia to attack the FBI," and "conducted combat drills to realize his plan," they wrote. He "strategized ways to bomb the FBI Knoxville office" and "identified a 'hornet's nest' at which to store his various weapons at 'arms' reach.'" Kelley also "devised a kill list of individual agents to be targeted" and then "gave the go-ahead command — 'start it' — to his confederates, noting that 'every hit has to hurt.'" Kelley's lawyer wrote that "no individual was directly threatened with harm or violence by Kelley, and no one was injured" and that "Kelley does not deserve the same sentence as an actual 'terrorist' who injured or killed hundreds or thousands" of Americans. Austin Carter, who admitted that he conspired with Kelley in the murder plot and pleaded guilty, is scheduled to be sentenced next month.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
